Random Thoughts 6/27/26: Asylum No More

Yesterday I was doing some 'weeding thinking' and mulling over the Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to keep asylum seekers out of the country. Effectively, the decision eliminates asylum as an option for immigrants, because our law requires them to 'arrive' in the US to begin the process.

Here's where my mind wandered:

The person who might figure out how to cure Alzheimer’s is waiting on the other side of the border; so, too might be the person who can end our reliance on things that generate all the bad crap we get in our food, water, and the air we breathe.

The person who might come up with a way to allow us to identify who's sending all those UAP/UFOs, and help us interact with lifeforms from other planets, could be standing right next to her, staring up at the stars.

Someone who could figure out how to effectively provide reliable energy for new and existing homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, the dreaded data centers, and vehicles, without putting the environment and people’s health at risk, could be there, too.

The person who can calculate how to reliably fund a responsive government without spending trillions of dollars it doesn't have, and without unfairly taking from those who have less while favoring those who have more, might be waiting in their shadows.

The team of people who can figure out how to better and/or more cost-effectively prepare our children for their future (and for protecting ours) while we navigate AI, environmental calamity, global economic and military threats, and challenges that are not yet fully understood could be there, waiting, too.

The young adult who might eventually write the next Great American Novel could be standing at our border, eager to come in and go through our lengthy, underfunded, understaffed, misunderstood, neglected, outdated, and almost incomprehensible immigration process, all to have a chance to experience their own American Dream, the one they’ve heard about all their life.

Now, those things - the cures and the science and the ideas, might not happen.

Now, that book might never get written.

Instead, the book could tell a story of a great divide, far wider than any of our actual borders, between who Americans think we are and how we are presented to the world, or between who the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents of the author understood Americans to be, compared to today's Americans who slammed the door shut.

It could tell of an America that will send thousands of people back to the "shithole countries" they fled (the president's term, not mine), countries our government has declared totally unsafe - for Americans, anyway.

It could tell of an America only welcoming to wealthy white people fleeing a black majority country, or to Christians being 'persecuted' by religious majorities, while feigning ignorance of the promises we made to refugees from other countries, including those whose lives are at risk solely because they helped America during our wars against their country.

It could tell of a president who has said that America, once the beacon of hope to the entire world, was a ‘dead country’ until he got back into office, that only he can save us, and who has worked to strip America of the things that make us ‘America’ as he labors to cement his legacy, the country's legacy be damned.

It could tell any of those stories, and more, seen through the eyes of someone stuck on the outside looking in, rather than the story we love to read about us: that of an outsider, threatened where they lived, who was welcomed into our country’s embrace and offered the experience of a lifetime: a fresh start, here, in America.

This morning, sitting on the porch with my coffee and sleepy kitties, I'm still mulling this over, and thinking about what we stand to lose compared to what we stand to gain with this decision.

On the losing side? The interwebs gave me a list of notable asylees, which, if correct, includes Albert Einstein, Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Elie Wiesel, and Gloria Estefan. Four of the five are recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Einstein died before the honor was created, but he, Kissinger, and Wiesel were awarded Nobel Prizes. Two were Secretaries of State; one is a Kennedy Center honoree. Their collective other accomplishments would fill a page or two, I'm sure. Would we have been better off not letting these folks in?

Also on the losing side: any effort to address what I described above as our "lengthy, underfunded, understaffed, misunderstood, neglected, outdated, and almost incomprehensible immigration process." What would be the point of trying to fix it when the current administration's goal, and that of those on the successor shortlist, is simply to slam the door shut on anyone who doesn't meet a very narrow definition of an ideal American?

I can think of lots more that could fall on this side of the ledger, but what's on the other side, the 'winning' side?

It's been several minutes since I typed the sentence above, and I've not come up with much for the win column, other than financial benefits.

Oh, sure - we have better control of who's being let into the country through legal channels (because asylum-seeking *was* a legal channel) if we don't let anyone in.

More importantly, based on what I've read and heard? We may save money because we won't have to temporarily house and care for these folks until they get jobs and start paying taxes, including the critical contributions they make to Social Security. We won't have to pay to educate their children, and, at least in theory, there'll be more jobs for Americans, assuming Americans are willing to take the jobs these folks will be leaving behind.

And, we might be able to clear the backlog of pending asylum cases, assuming anyone wants to address the backlog in the first place, and assuming there are still folks here who've applied for asylum and haven't self-deported out of fear and frustration, or haven't been detained and deported as the administration rounded up "the worst of the worst," or whatever it was it claimed to be doing.

Do those 'wins' outweigh the losses? I'm not at all convinced they do, although I'm convinced I could name several people in my own circles who'd disagree with me.

That may be the most American thing about this whole mess.

Wondering on Wednesday 2/28/24

Ready... set... wonder!

Ronna McDaniel is stepping down as chair of the RNC after the Super Tuesday primaries in March. I wonder if she’ll have to get permission from her family to go back to using her maiden name, which she used before Donald Trump frowned on having anyone named Romney involved in the party leadership.

Sen. Mitch McConnell announced he’ll step down as leader of the Republicans in the Senate after the November election, but will serve out the remainder of this term. I sort of wonder if he announced this so he won’t have to endorse Donald Trump? I also wonder if he’s got the courage to do the right thing and pass on making that endorsement.

Michigan Dems held a primary yesterday, and over 100,000 Dems -13% of the total - voted 'Uncommitted,' while 81% voted for President Biden. I was not surprised that Biden did the right thing after the results were announced.

In his statement late Tuesday evening, Biden thanked “every Michigander who made their voice heard today,” noting that “exercising the right to vote and participating in our democracy is what makes America great.”

A couple of things on this one. As I noted previously, I wonder why we all don't have the chance to actively vote for nobody, whether it's ‘uncommitted' or 'none of these candidates,' as they can in Nevada. Second, I wonder why the media can't help tripping over themselves trying to cement a connection between a protest vote in a February primary and the presidential election (checks calendar) over 250 days away. And then I laughed and laughed at the stupidity of my wondering.

I support the protest vote, and the protest; I often wonder if we are doing enough to pressure Israel to at least ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid is reaching the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are guilty of nothing other than living in Gaza. And if you want to make the argument that "Hamas was elected, so everyone in Gaza must support them," I can't help wondering how you handled the whiplash of going from being an Obama Democrat to a MAGA Republican to a Biden Democrat over the last three elections... I'd love to hear about that, if you're willing to talk about it.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments in April on whether or not a US president has complete immunity - up to and including going as far as having SEAL Team 6 murder a political opponent - or if he's just like any other American thug, and subject to our criminal justice system.  By delaying arguments for five weeks, they're playing into his hands, I think, and that's frustrating. I wonder why there isn't a way for the Supremes to act more expediently when the case is both critically important and significantly time-constrained, unless they're acting exactly as fast as they want to, in which case we might have to wonder about other things, right?

Donald Trump has said he’s unable to come up with the full bond amount in his NY business fraud case. He maintains he can come up with $100M, but getting to the full amount ($355M not counting the daily interest accruals) is impossible, without having to sell off properties.  And I wonder which he’d pick -  Trump Tower, with its 30,000 square-foot penthouse? 40 Wall Street? 

But wait – I wonder if he even can sell any of the NY properties? Would that count as "doing business' in NY, which is prohibited under Judge Arthur Engoron’s decision? And if he has to go elsewhere, would he pick Bedminster, where the buyer would get not only a golf course but also Ivana Trump's burial site? Trump Winery in Virginia?  Or – gasp – Mar-a-Lago, which is worth $27M (accountant valuation), $517M (Trump loan application), or ONE BILLION DOLLARS (Trump's personal opinion)?  There’s just so much wondering on this one. 

And speaking of the Engoron decision, in case you’re wondering, the GoFundMe set up to allow Americans to help their billionaire best friend pay the judgment has raised more than $1.28M from some 22K donors. 

What's on your wondering mind tonight?

TGIF 9/30/22

Another week is winding down, and it's time for the good week/bad week accounting. Here are just a few of the folks who earned a mention.

The state of Florida had a mixes week. On the latter, the cat-4 Hurricane Ian made a mess of things, tossing boats and houses and piers around, causing massive flooding, and cutting power to millions of customers as it crossed the state. On the other hand, many people evacuated on time, and many of those who didn't rode out the storm and lived to talk about it. We'll learn more in the coming days on how deadly it was, but the initial reports were not as bad we expected. On a personal note, I'm grateful that all my friends and family in Florida are safe.

Staying in the Sunshine State, Gov. Ron DeSantis is doing his darnedest to act statesmanly, given his presidential aspirations, but his past - and votes against disaster funding for another hurricane in a far-off place (the blue states of New Jersey and New York) - are cropping up on social media. His staff said the Gov has no time for pettiness, which is a first, I think; he's a master of the petty, in fact. But when push comes to shove, or when storm surge comes to the Gulf Coast, he's willing to set that aside and work with President Biden, at least until there's talk about making fiscally responsible disaster aid demands. 

Speaking of the gaffe master, he might have exceeded our wildest imaginations at a White House hunger conference this week, when he called out for the late Rep. Jackie Walorski, who was killed in a car accident in August. Walorski was a co-chair of the Hunger Caucus, and was one of the folks who introduced the bill that led to the conference. And, of course, the pack of reporters, hungry as always for a sound-bite and air time, undertook "a series of tense exchanges" trying to get an answer as to why Biden, well, pulled a Biden. Is an answer necessary?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was formally sworn in this week, and will take her seat on the bench on Monday, at a time when 60% of us believe the Court is "out of touch" and 66% believe there should be term limits for Justices.  Those sentiments aren't indicative of KBJ, of course, but she's coming on the Court at a difficult time, with some tough cases on affirmative action and college admissions, LGBTQ rights, and election issues, among others.

Beto O'Rourke, who's running for governor of Texas, received support from family members of Uvalde school shooting victims. They traveled nearly five hours by bus to hold a press conference an hour before the only debate between O'Rourke and Gov. Greg Abbott who, in these folks minds, "had not taken enough action on gun control measures" since the shooting four months ago.

I hope you had a good week.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 7/10/22

The luck of the draw for your Sunday School lesson went to the Face the Nation classroom on CBS. 

Vice President Kamala Harris was in the classroom via videotaped segments from her interview with Robert Costa. The first part was about mass shootings, and how conversations with first responders and families of victims always turn to assault weapons. 

Harris said those weapons "were specifically and intentionally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly," and said  

the fact that we can't get Congress to renew...  the assault weapons ban is outrageous. 

It's OK to support the 2nd Amendment, as she does, and be against assault weapons, too. Costa wondered why so many legally get these weapons and "slip past red flag laws like those in Illinois." Harris pointed to the availability of the weapons, but didn't touch on the red flag laws.

Costa didn't follow up, unfortunately. Instead, he moved to abortion. While he mentioned President Biden's recent Executive Order, he also said that many Dems "remain very angry" with the decision in the Dobbs case, and he played a clip of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) asking

Where is the Democratic Party? Where's the party? Why aren't we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort. And, yes, they're winning.

He asked Harris if Newsom is right, and again we got half an answer. She said "all of us share a deep sense of outrage" about the Supreme Court taking a recognized right away from women. And, she said,

You don't have to agree that you want to or would advocate that you or a loved one would have an abortion to agree that the government should not be making that decision for any individual woman.

Costa followed up, asking "Did Democrats fail, past Democratic presidents, congressional leaders, to not codify Roe v. Wade over the past five decades?"

I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believed that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled... And that's why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.

Harris used voting rights as an example. This was settled, back in the 60s, but now states are "intentionally making it more difficult for people to vote." It's the same with choice, she said. And while the administration is doing what it can, such as the Executive Order, they can't do it alone.

...we also need Congress to act, because that branch of government is where we actually codify, which means put into law the rights that, again, we took for granted, but clearly have now been taken from the women of America. 

Referring to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights act as examples of Congressional action, Harris said, "That's what we need to do with Roe and the principles behind Roe."

Another question she didn't answer? Whether Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached for statements made during their confirmation hearings. 

I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate. I never believed them. I didn't believe them. It's why I voted against (them).

She said it's all about the elections this November, and that "we need a pro-choice Congress." She also noted, correctly in my opinion, that it's not just Congress people need to worry about.

It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races. Who's going to be your DA, who's going to be your sheriff enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service?

Costa gave her a fill-in-the-blank question: "Americans need to vote for Democrats in November because____________?" 

Our democracy is on the ballot, truly, truly. If you look at an issue like choice, it's on the ballot, a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and potentially what can happen in the not-too-distant future around issues like access to and making decisions about contraception or same-sex marriage. Elections matter. 

Costa wondered how they were going to counter polls showing that "support for this administration among Black Americans has softened," and that people are frustrated about police reform being stalled. Harris said that Americans in general, not just Black Americans, should demand legislation addressing key issues is passed, whether it's police reform or anything else. 

I mean, but, again, there is a connection between what we are -- what we want to have happen and the power of Congress to actually make it happen, when it comes to changing the laws, when it comes to writing and then putting in effect, laws that create accountability and greater fairness in our system, be it our criminal justice system, be it our health care delivery system, all of that.

And, she added

What we have also seen is that Black Americans and all Americans said -- look at the United States Supreme Court. There has never in the history of that court been a Black woman to serve. There now is, because people stood in line in 2020 for hours demanding that, of the things that they would stand in line to see happen...  Ketanji Brown Jackson on the United States Supreme Court. So, there are demands that were made by voters, saying these are the things we want out of this administration. And a lot of those demands have been met in the first year-and-a-half. There's still more work to do, without any question.

Finally, when it came to the big question, she said that Joe Biden plans on running in '24, and if he does, she'll run with him. 

See you around campus.

Wondering on Wednesday 6/29/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

The wondering is wandering today. 

I wonder why so many people think that a House committee investigation is a trial, and that a hearing room at the Capitol is the same as a courtroom? 

And why would anyone who managed the House Judiciary Committee GOP cabal's Twitter feed would think that everything Cassidy Hutchinson said yesterday - the entirety of her testimony - was hearsay? I wonder if it's because Rep. Jim (Who's Going to Play Me in Clooney's Documentary?) Jordan is the goofball behind the keyboard?

Hutchinson seemed very clear, to anyone who actually watched the hearings (other than the aforementioned Twitter user, who said no one was watching) about what things she was personally involved in, and what things were told to her by others. 

So, for example, when she said she texted Kevin McCarthy, one could surmise that those text messages were made available to the January 6th Committee. And I wonder why so many people who obviously didn't watch are so dead-certain about the veracity of her testimony...

Happily, I'm able to report that Andrew Giuliani was not successful in his bid to become the Republican nominee for governor of NY, not that I wondered a whole lot about the possibility of him winning the primary. Truth be told, I spent zero time on that. 

Although, now that I think about it, I do sort of wonder how Andrew, son of Rudy (My Back Hurts, but Otherwise I'm Able to Walk and Stuff Like That) Giuliani would be able to withstand the rigors of being a politician. After all, male pols are frequently given a sturdy handshake and countless bicep grips and backslaps. If he's got a glass back like his daddy, he'd be in big trouble, so it's probably good he didn't win.

Incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul, who took over after the Sonofa Gov's fall from grace last year, easily won the Democratic primary. Hochul won every county in the state, most of them easily, over runner-up Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi, who finished a distant third. 

On the Republican side, Rep. Lee Zeldin cruised to victory over Giuliani, 2014 nominee Rob Astorino, and 'turn-around expert' Harry Wilson. I don't think any of the Rs ran a good race, really - and we never heard much at all from Williams and Suozzi. It almost felt like the Rs ran upstate and the Ds ran downstate. 

So, what's the wondering on our election results? Now that the campaign will start in earnest, how bad are things going to get, advertising-wise? Hochul's raised over $34M so far, with a goal of raising $50M-$70M by Election Day. That's a whole lot of money for a whole lot of ads, to go along with a whole lot of bill-signing still to come, I'm sure. And Zeldin? He claims over $11.5M in 'pre-primary' fundraising, so we'll be seeing a lot of him I'm sure, too. He certainly wasn't shy with his ads during the primary, and I don't think that'll change. 

Early voting turnout was "anemic" in New York City, with fewer than 90,000 people taking advantage of the opportunity, out of some 3,600,000 registered voters. Not sure how that amount of apathy will impact what happens in August, or November, but it does make me wonder if we really needed to have several days of early voting in New York.

In New York, R Kelly was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his decades of sexual trafficking and racketeering; he faces additional charges in Illinois and Minnesota. My only wondering here is if any of his victims will ever feel safe and whole again. 

And finally, I'm going to drop a blanket wondering: what the heck's going on with the Supreme Court and their recent decisions, and did anyone really see all of these coming?

What's on your wondering minds tonight?

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 3)

Shockwaves continue to move across the landscape after the not-unexpected Supreme Court decision that there is no constitutional right to abortion, so the states must decide individually what they'll allow. 

But all is not lost in this battle, and pro-choice politicians - primarily Democrats - have a variety of opportunities to make a difference, and, of course, to make a horrible mess of things.

I look to the Notorious RBG for motivation here, and what she teaches us about Roe: that it was the right decision, wrongly justified. She believed, and stated more than once, that Roe should have been decided as an equality issue, not a privacy issue, as Amy Frieder noted in a Salon article this past May.

She elaborated on this in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart:  "[L]egal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." (Emphasis added.)

Because of that, Frieder continued, "Advocates must argue that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting already-existing human lives subjected to oppression that stems from state action based on impermissible sex stereotyping in an unequal society. To put that in plain language, abortion is necessary so long as sex inequality in society persists." 

And, she included in the article,

"When abortion-restrictive regulation is analyzed as state action compelling motherhood, it presents equal protection concerns that Roe's physiological reasoning obscures," according to constitutional law scholar Reva Siegel. Equal protection should preclude state coercion of motherhood. 

The Dems and their pro-choice allies should use the discriminatory and unequal arguments as their primary tactic to challenge state laws, or at least legislate corrections to them.

• Forcing motherhood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because fatherhood is not being forced on the man. 

• Forcing parenthood on a pregnant woman is discriminatory and unequal, because parenthood is not forced on any other women (or men). These laws unfairly favor 'pre-born' children over living children who are parentless in homes, shelters, and state-run institutions.

• Declaring that life begins at fertilization imposes a faith-based decision on all citizens, favors one set of beliefs over all others, and denies pregnant women the right to practice their religion, as guaranteed under the First Amendment. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for the pregnancy being 'outside the woman's control' is discriminatory, as abortions aren't similarly available to women who get pregnant due to a contraceptive failure, equally outside her control. 

• Allowing rape or incest exceptions for any other reasons is purely arbitrary, creates a separate class of pregnancy, and is therefore discriminatory. There can be no exceptions based on how the pregnancy occurred.

• Allowing destruction of embryos created outside the womb, but not allowing destruction of embryos created inside the womb, creates a separate class of 'pre-born children' and is discriminatory. 

• Allowing dependent tax deductions and other financial advantages for living children but not for 'pre-born' children is discriminatory. 

• Companies providing a benefit for women to travel to receive medical care, but not providing that same benefit to all employees, is discriminatory. 

• Period- and location-tracking apps, and similar technologies, are private and cannot be used against any woman seeking a legal abortion. Laws must be put in place, before the abortion law goes into effect, making use of these technologies for this or any similar purpose a crime.

• Any state banning abortion must provide health insurance coverage for all pre-natal, maternity, and post-partum care. Regulations providing the benefits, and confirmation that they're available, must be in place the abortion law goes into effect. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide paid time off from work for all necessary care and treatment, including maternal/child bonding if the woman is keeping the child. If the woman is enrolled in any level of school, special provisions, including tutoring if needed, must be made available. 

• Any state banning abortion must provide housing, nutritional, transportation and/or other assistance to any pregnant woman requesting it; the state must prove the capability to provide this assistance for the anticipated population before the abortion ban can go into effect.

• Using Medicaid or other generally accepted 'access-to-care' metrics, any state that bans abortion must prove there is sufficient access for the projected population to receive appropriate care throughout the pregnancy, and after. If the access is not available, the state must develop, fund, and implement programs to provide it before the abortion ban can go into effect.

Believe me, I realize some of those might be distasteful, particularly the ones challenging widely-supported abortion exceptions and IVF; hence the tag of 'unpopular' opinions. But not fighting discrimination that we agree with is wrong. 

TGIF 6/24/22

If it fits in a uterus, it will surely fit in a married couple's medicine cabinet.

If it fits in a uterus and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, it will surely fit in a same-sex relationship.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, it will surely fit in a same-sex marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, it will surely fit in an inter-racial marriage.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, it will surely fit in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, it will surely fit in a period-tracking app.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, it will surely fit in an employer's benefit package. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, it will surely fit in a smart-phone location-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, it will surely fit in a toll-tracking app. 

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, it will surely fit public surveillance data.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, it will surely fit in your electronic medical records.

If it fits in a uterus, and in a married couple's medicine cabinet, and in a same-sex relationship, and in a same-sex marriage, and in an inter-racial marriage, and in a fertilized embryo's deep freezer, and in a period-tracking app, and in an employer's benefit package, and in a smart-phone location tracking app, and in a toll-tracking app, and in public surveillance data, and in your electronic medical records, it will surely fit in other places, the likes of which we haven't yet even thought.

But it won't fit in a gun cabinet.

TGIF, everyone.

Sunday School 6/12/22

Let's get your Sunday School lesson rolling, with Sen. Chris Coons (R-DE), who was in the Fox News Sunday classroom with Bret Bair, one of his two appearances today. 

Baier started by asking why the House hadn't taken up the unanimously-passed Senate bill on security for Supreme Court justices, which Coons cosponsored. The House was looking to incorporate protections for SCOTUS staff and their families, Coons said.

And then, he put that bill into the larger picture of January 6th and "politically motivated violence in our country," and said the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were a "call to action."

Baier waved that off, saying they were "going to get to both of those other things in a minute," and then he asked whether those protesting at a judge's house should be arrested. Coons talked about having to "strike the right balance" between freedom of speech and ensuring judges and justices are safe. And he added

I do think we need to take stronger action to make sure that our federal judiciary is safe because that's part of making sure our democracy is safe, which really is the core issue of the January 6th hearings, is how do we make sure that the fundamentals of our democracy, the safety and security of Congress, the peaceful transfer of power, and I would also at the safety and security of our federal judiciary is ensured. We should act.

Refusing to change the subject, Baier asked if the AG should arrest the protesters, and said no matter how the Court rules on Roe, it's going to be contentious. Coons said if the opinion matches the draft, it "would be a remarkable act of judicial activism, conservative judicial activism" and there'd be "understandable anger across the nation." 

And he continued, "we need to make sure that all appropriate actions are being taken to ensure the safety of members of our federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices." Here's how it went after that. 

Baier: Okay, so don't arrest the protesters based on the title, I got it. That's what you're saying. The president this --

Coons: Bret, let's be clear. I didn't say don't arrest protesters. I'm simply saying that all appropriate action should be taken to ensure the safety of the Supreme Court justices. And I'm not going to say this protester or that protester ought to be arrested. I just think that that's a judgment call to be made by law enforcement, not by a senator on a Sunday show.

Yeah, but...  

Baier said no one's been arrested, and President Biden hasn't mentioned "this specific threat" about Kavanaugh, although "The White House press secretary said a couple of things in a gaggle to reporters that the president condemns violence of any kind. But should the president have said something publicly about this?"

Coons reminded Baier that Biden has "repeatedly spoken out against politically motivated violence in our country, the risk of politically motivated violence," and 

I certainly have denounced this latest threat against Justice Kavanaugh. But it's important that we remember there are threats of political violence of many kinds and types. Folks who are watching this morning who didn't watch the January 6th hearing should take a few moments and review what Congresswoman Liz Cheney, an unimpeachable conservative from Wyoming, had to say in her opening statement. I think there are risks of political violence we should all be speaking out against and acting to ensure we control, manage, and reduce.

Baier again threatened to change the subject, saying, "we're going to talk about January 6th in just a moment." 

But don't you think Democrats and the media would possibly, Senator, be making more about a threat like this, a specific threat, if it was happening to liberal justices?

Oh, my goodness, he's a dog with a bone, isn't he? And Coons? Cool as a cucumber, still.

Well, Bret, you have in front of you the Democratic senator who cosponsored with Senator Cornyn a bill that would provide greater security --

Baier interrupts with "I'm just saying publicly, Senator," and Coons continues

 -- for the families of justices. I don't know how more publicly I can say that I think threats of violence against Supreme Court justices, their families, their clerks are reprehensible, unacceptable, and we should take action to secure the federal judiciary.

In Case You Missed It (v89)

Back from a quick getaway to Cape Cod, which limited my posting last week. Here's what did make it out, in case you missed anything.

For Sunday School, I sat in on abortion-related discussions with a Republican governor and member of Congress and a Democratic senator and a state AG. Here's a bit of the conversation with the governor, Mississippi's Tate Reeves, who was in the CNN State of the Union classroom with Jake Tapper in the driver's seat.

Part of their conversation focused on the state's dismal statistics on poverty, infant mortality, paid maternity leave, Medicaid expansion and a federal lawsuit over Child Protective Services failures to protect children. Reeves said

It's due in large part to poverty. And so, we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

I did a little noodling around and found some additional statistics that Tapper didn't mention, and tossed a question into the air. 

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

For your Extra Credit, I tried to find something else that's relevant these days, and stumbled on Margaret Brennan and former AG Eric Holder talking in the Face the Nation classroom about redistricting. Holder's running an organization called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and he's written a book, too.  

They talked about redistricting around the country, and about maps drawn by both the Rs and the Ds. He draws distinctions between what's happened in various states.

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 gave some examples, including Texas, where the Hispanic population increased, giving the states additional Congressional seats, but 

they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

That's not the same as what happened in NY, where the map 

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 he's not buying the Florida Man's maps, either, which he says are "certainly race conscious." 

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.

And Alabama's even stranger, with the court saying it's too close to the election to change the maps - which is pretty much the opposite of what's happening in other states.  

It was an interesting discussion, and not just on redistricting.

I did have a little Wondering on Wednesday fun, part of it stemming from things we saw - or didn't see - on the trip to the Cape. 

There was wonderment about making sure trucks can go slowly down steep grades, but not making sure they can go fast up the same hills, and about the seemingly always-closed truck weigh stations, no matter what state we're in, and no matter what state the trucks or their drivers are in. On the latter, I've made a blanket deal with my husband - if we ever see one of these inspection ramps open, I'll give him $20. 

And then it got a little more serious, with wondering on the Senate's failed like it was guaranteed to vote to codify abortion protections, and whether there were any possibilities to work on a passable vote. Not that the Dems were interested in doing that, anyway.

I wondered about Elon Musk (that's become de rigueur, right?) and Twitter, and I wondered about abortion-related protests.

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like what women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

I wonder, I do, about this stuff and more, and about what I'll find this week, when I'm back in the swing of paying attention to things.

I'll see you next for Sunday School.

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 5/4/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

If you're like many folks, no matter where you stand on the opinion outlined in the Alito draft suggesting that Roe v. Wade is being overturned, you're probably wondering who leaked the darn thing in the first place. 

Many on the right assumed it was a liberal justice's clerk, trying to rally the troops and get folks riled up to either (a) change the presumed outcome of the decision, or (b) change the presumed outcome of the midterm elections. And, of course, they did the whole "we're the victims here" because someone stole their thunder, or something. 

Me? I wondered which of the justices leaked the draft. My first guess? 

I think it was Ginni Thomas in Clarence's office with a spatula who flipped the Roe-killing draft out the window into the hands of a reporter who had been snooping around trying to figure out if there was any medical reason for Clarence to have spent a week in the hospital at the exact time that Ginni was in the headlines because of her life-and-death January 6th text messages to Trump's 4th Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, the guy who wants us to believe his permanent address is a rusty old trailer on top of Scaly Mountain.

That the reporter happened to be there with an open catcher's mitt is pure chance.

And now we'll have to wait to see how long before Clarence goes back into the hospital - or until Ginni goes into the hospital, leaving Clarence to text his CPAC friends for some suitably conservative recipes to cook while Ginni is indisposed.

And my second? 

Or, maybe it was Kavanaugh, by the keg, who used the draft to mop up a mess created by his leaving the tap open when he went to check his calendar from 6th grade to see whether he needed go to the gym on the first Monday in May.

Finding out that was not the case - it's the first Monday in October that's relevant now - he over-served himself, and tossed the damp draft and a bunch of Red Solo cups into the trash on his way to bed, where soon dreams of Renate danced in his head. He might have even sung the Renate Alumni fight song in his stupor, but I can't say for sure.

And that's where the draft was found - in the dumpster with the cups and their residual draft -by the reporter from Politico, who had a nose for news - and beer - and sniffed out the story of the year.

If you had to wonder, who do you think let the draft see the light of day? And, perhaps more importantly, why?

Other wondering on this week's big story? What else will fall? If the standard is things that are deeply rooted in our history, clearly additional attacks on voting rights will be affirmed, and encouraged.

Inter-racial marriage? It's hard to imagine that surviving, right? Consider our 'deeply rooted history' of enslaving blacks to do the work that was beneath us, and how young black girls became the sexual targets of their white overseers. And who could forget the murder of blacks for the offense of looking at white women, or speaking to them? How could we possibly allow them to marry into our families, with this deeply rooted history of ours?

Similarly, I wonder how long before we say that marriage equality has no deep roots in America? Any bets on that? And, I wonder, do people know how many states still have laws on the books banning and/or refusing to recognize same-sex marriage? Sure, they're being ignored since the Obergefell decision, but they're still on the books.

Another issue about which we can wonder? Can any of the alleged privacy protections in the Constitution actually protect women who want to use contraception? I mean, think about it. 

• Our life expectancy is falling. 
• The birth rate is falling. 
• We're projected to be a minority-white country - by 2045.  

Is it really beyond our wildest imagination, I wonder, for some red-state pseudo-religious legislature to decide that what we need more than anything is more cute white babies, and act to make sure that happens by restricting access to contraception?

I know Alito said, in the draft, that this was just about abortion, but we know we can trust that about as far as we can throw him, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett.

What's got you wondering tonight?

Sunday School 1/30/22: Extra Credit

In this week's Sunday School, I spent time in the classroom with George and the gang at ABC's This Week. For your Extra Credit, I hung out in CNN's State of the Union classroom, with Dana Bash in the host chair. 

I want to focus on the panel discussion, with former Trump advisor David Urban, former Pence and Trump aid Alyssa Farah Griffin, Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and former Obama advisor Stephanie Cutter. One topic was the upcoming Biden nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court. (And, I'll confess, I didn't even know that CNN SOTU had a panel now. Shame on me for not paying attention.)

Rep. Blunt Rochester was "beyond thrilled" with Biden's plan. She was at the debate when Biden made the commitment to do that, and she anticipates he'll pick someone who's very qualified.

But, also, I really thought back to when I was ending high school and President Reagan announced that he was going to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, and how excited I was then. This moment, I think, is long overdue. And I feel like, for all the little girls out there, for all of the -- for everybody, this is a big deal. I'm not going to say another word in the middle there, but this is a big deal.

Farah Griffin was asked to compare Biden's promise to that of president Trump's promise to put a woman - but not a black woman - in RBG's seat. I hoped that she would admit Trump had exactly zero intention of nominating a Black woman, so there was no reason for him to say it, but she didn't go there. 

Rather, she said she didn't "really understand the strategy," noting the undoubtedly "highly qualified" nominee would be called "somebody who was there because of affirmative action." And we know, already, that the Rs plan on using that in their messaging, if not in their vetting. 

I think the bigger thing here is, Joe Biden's struggling with African-American voters. And it's surprising. Last year, in April, he had 83% support. Now he's got about 64%. I think he's hoping this is going to give him a bump. But I think he's misreading the tea leaves. I think it's much more it's economic policies that are resulting in this, not simply who he is nominating to the bench.

Talk about misreading the tea leaves! It's not that Biden thinks the SCOTUS pick is more important than the things Farah Griffin mentioned; rather, it's the promise he made, at the South Carolina debate, and how that promise got him the support he needed to win the primary. In fact, Biden placed first in every county in the state, and took nearly 49% of the vote, compared to That Guy from Vermont's just-shy-of-20%. Keeping that promise is hugely important, no matter what the polls show. 

Cutter tried to pretend it wasn't a political decision at all; Biden had another reason, she said.

I think he's making this decision to ensure that the Supreme Court represents the people that it is supposed to serve. And we have never had a black woman on the court. And that's a tragedy, you know? So, this is a historic moment. And it's a shame that people can't see the importance of the moment. He's not making this choice because of politics. He's making this choice to ensure that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, represents all Americans.

Urban was incredulous - as was I - and continually spoke over Cutter's attempts to explain herself.

Steph, did you say that without laughing? He didn't -- this is not a political pick? All Supreme Court picks are political picks... They're political. It's completely political. And it's his right. He can -- it's well within his right to do...But to say it's not political... Joe Biden wouldn't be president if it weren't for black women... Joe Biden wouldn't be president but for black women... He wouldn't be president. So, let's -- it's his pick. It's his pick...

You can watch this entire segment here.

After reaching bipartisan consensus that elections have consequences and Biden can pick whoever he wants, they moved on to talking about the women on the short list, only some of whom have been identified. Farah Griffin mentioned what she considers "kind of the open question" - what kind of person will he pick?

...if he's going to go with one of the more moderate ones who in the past has gotten Republican support at lower court levels, or if he's going to go with a very progressive left, and that -- left-leaning judge... Is this a justice for the entire country or for the leftmost flank?

And when has that ever been a question with Republicans nominees, I wonder? 

My favorite part, though? Cutter wrote an op-ed for the NY Times, in which she stated 

Thanks to President Donald Trump and the former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, there is a new set of rules in place for Supreme Court nominations that all but guarantees Democrats will succeed, unless, of course, we mess it up.

Oh, how many times I've said that myself over the years! The Democrats are their own worst enemy, always. And yes, they could easily mess this up - does anyone doubt that? 

Cutter said that with the Amy Coney Barrett appointment, which took a mere 8 days from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to her Rose Garden, COVID super-spreader nomination party, and only a month more to her swearing-in, the Rs set the stage for speedy confirmations, while also being criticized for "not having a deliberative process."  They couldn't, really - they were too giddy, remember?

I don't expect President Biden and Senate Democrats to move that quickly. But we need to take some lessons from that. It is -- we should move quickly, so that this nominee doesn't get tarnished by somebody like Senator Wicker, or we know that a lot of this conversation in the Republican Party is going to be about affirmative action and undertones of racism. We need to be careful and not tarnish the nominee. Let's move quickly. They are incredibly accomplished women. We should do our jobs, vet, deliberate, but get it done. Do not drag it out.

She's right. Do NOT drag this out. 

Biden needs to get with Senators in his own party to talk about his options, and they need to have quiet conversations with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, too. And Biden is welcome to reach across the aisle himself, too. 

And I'll get flack for this, I'm sure, but members of the House need to sit this one out. The last thing - the absolute LAST THING we need, is for the fractured Dem caucus to start their usual infighting and filling the airways with their complaints about who Biden picks. If they do that, they'll provide all the ammunition the Rs need to stonewall the nomination, hold it up, and fill the airwaves with their own special version of claptrap. 

And, the Dems also need to get in front of what else is on their agenda, and how they can do more than one thing at a time, and then they need to do something, starting with the looming budget deadline. Separate from the benefits to Biden - putting his stamp on the budget and government agencies, or whatever - the Dems need to show they can prioritize, and lead.

Yep. Democrats will succeed, unless of course, they mess it up.

See you around campus.