The Commentariat -- June 28, 2019
Late Morning Update:
Adam Liptak & Michael Shear of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court will decide whether the Trump administration may shut down a program that shields some 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants from deportation, the court said on Friday. The court will hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October, and will probably issue its decision in the spring or summer of 2020, ensuring a fierce immigration debate over the outcome in the midst of the presidential campaign."
Jacqueline Thomsen of the Hill: "The Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a case on an Alabama law that outlawed a common form of abortion, allowing lower court orders blocking the law to remain in place.Alabama had sought to overturn lower court rulings that struck down the ban on the abortion procedure, but the justices rejected that bid in their order."
Maybe you were wondering how Trump officials would respond to the heartbreaking photo of Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter Valeria lying dead on the banks of the Rio Grande. Turns out (okay, not surprisingly,) Ken Cuccinelli, Trump's new (acting) director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services doesn't have a heart to break: "... the reason we have tragedies like that on the border is because that father didn't wait to go through the asylum process in the legal fashion and decided to cross the river and not only died but his daughter died tragically as well." Mrs. McC: According to CBS News, "Martinez' family said he spent weeks trying to seek asylum at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico, but couldn't get anyone to talk to him. His father said he was there about two or three months." So not only is Cuccinelli a heartless SOB, he's a lying, heartless SOB if the Martinez story is true.
~~~~~~~~~~
Very Funny. Trump & Putin Share a Joke about Russia's Election Interference. Jonathan Lamire & Zeke Miller of the AP: "With a smirk and a finger point..., Donald Trump dryly told Russia's Vladimir Putin 'Don't meddle with the election' in their first meeting since the special counsel concluded that Russia extensively interfered with the 2016 campaign.... Putin laughed.... The tone of the president's comment, which came after a reporter asked if he would warn Putin, was immediately open to interpretation. But it would seem to do little to silence questions about Trump's relationship with Russia in the aftermath of special counsel Robert Mueller's conclusion that he could not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump's campaign and Russia." The "joke" came in response to a reporter's shouted question on whether or not Trump would warn Putin "not to meddle." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: "Open to interpretation"? You'd have to be an idiot not to see this as yet another of the dozens of known instances of Trump's (and his aides') "colluding" with Russia to skew U.S. presidential elections in 2016, and now in 2020. Trump has already said publicly he would welcome Russian help in 2020. This is a confirmation of his remarks to George Stephanopoulos. But, hey, it was a "joke." So not impeachable, right? See also David Corn's post, linked below, on Rex Tillerson's assignment in Moscow.
Presidential Race 2020
Jonathan Martin & Alexander Burns of the New York Times: "Joseph R. Biden Jr. repeatedly found himself on the defensive in the Democratic debate on Thursday over his record as well as his personal views, with the most searing moment of the night, and the primary campaign to date, coming when Senator Kamala Harris confronted him over his comments on working with segregationists in the Senate.... She then ... recall[]ed that he had also opposed school busing in the 1970s. 'There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day,' Ms. Harris said. 'And that little girl was me.' Mr. Biden responded indignantly..., and then returned fire at Ms. Harris, who has faced attacks from the left for her record as a prosecutor in California.... 'I was a public defender, I didn't become a prosecutor.'"
... Benjamin Wallace-Wells of the New Yorker: When Biden responded to Harris, "he started to sound lawyerly. He had opposed only the intervention of the federal Department of Education in busing[, he said]. In fact, Biden opposed busing, then and now; it was a federal policy, and without federal intervention, Berkeley and countless other places across the country would not have integrated their schools. Harris noted that she was part of her pioneering class 'almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education.' 'Because your city council opposed it,' Biden replied. That remark made Harris's point for her: a city council should not have veto power over civil rights. It was the first turning point of the Democratic Presidential election.... The implicit [argument] was about which of them could claim the legacy of Barack Obama."
There was a little girl in California who was bussed to school. That little girl was me. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/XKm2xP1MDH
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 28, 2019
Emma Green of the Atlantic: "Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, called out Republicans for what he described as moral hypocrisy during the second night of the first Democratic presidential debates.... The conversation had turned to the border.... 'For a party that associates itself with Christianity, to say that ... God would smile on the division of families at the hands of federal agents, that God would condone putting children in cages,' Buttigieg said, 'has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.'"
Paul LeBlanc of CNN: "... Eric Swalwell was the first to launch a direct attack at former Vice President Joe Biden during Thursday's Democratic primary debate, stating Biden should 'pass the torch' to younger candidates by quoting then-Sen. Biden's words to the now 76-year-old Democratic front-runner. 'I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention and said it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans,' said Swalwell, a Democratic congressman from California. 'That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden. He was right when he said that 32 years ago. He is still right today,' Swalwell, who is 38, continued. Swalwell's line of attack was met with a collective gasp from the audience."
Bess Levin of Vanity Fair: "During the period between his inauguration and April 27, 2019, [Donald Trump] spewed a whopping 10,111 falsehoods in 828 days.... Which is all to say: It was downright refreshing that in the first two-hour Democratic debate on Wednesday, basically everyone told the truth!... Meanwhile, in the past day Trump has told at least half a dozen lies." --s
Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair: "Trump owes his victory in many ways to [Roger] Ailes and Fox. But they've also put Trump in a box. In 2016, Trump had the loyalty of the Fox News base, and he still has it.... But he's also become ... tightly wedged in the niche that Roger Ailes created, which doesn't seem to include more than, say, 43% of the American electorate.... [T]he Trump campaign is realizing, it probably isn't enough to elect Trump to a second term. His bid to reach a broader audience [with interviews on ABC & NBC], the network audience that Ailes had so much contempt for, failed. For the time being, Trump is trapped in Ailes's world.... The base-first strategy, with Fox as the linchpin, has put Trump's reelection campaign in mortal danger." --s
The Supremes Dispose
Putting "the Interests of the Established Few Above the Many." Michael Wines of the New York Times: "In two rulings that bore huge implications for American politics and governance, the Supreme Court handed Republicans a key victory by refusing to halt even the most extreme gerrymandered maps and potentially gave Democrats a win by at least delaying the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The two bitterly contested cases addressed an issue fundamental to the political system itself: How that system allocates power, and ultimately, how much of a voice the American people have in selecting their leaders. Gerrymandered maps that entrench one party in near-unbreakable power have become rampant as courts dithered over how and whether to rein them in. Now, with a green light from the justices, Republicans have an opportunity to lock in political dominance for the next decade in many of the 22 states where they control both the legislature and the governor's office. And the decision will almost certainly force Democrats, who control 14 statehouses, to reconsider their belated crusade against gerrymandered maps and begin drawing thei own -- an eat-or-be-eaten response to Republican success in gaming the redistricting process."
Ted Hesson of Politico: "The Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow today to the Trump administration's move to add a controversial citizenship question to the 2020 census, ruling that official explanations for the move were implausible and legally inadequate. In a surprising ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals on that point. The high court returned the case to lower courts for further action, raising doubts about the administration getting the go-ahead to add the question before upcoming deadlines to finalize the census questionnaire." (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Update. The New York Times story, by Adam Liptak is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Nicholas Wu, et al., of USA Today: "... Donald Trump said on Thursday afternoon that he would attempt to delay the 2020 census following a Supreme Court decision that would send his administration's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census back to a lower court, giving opponents another chance to block it. 'Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census,' Trump said in a tweet. 'I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter,' Trump tweeted. The Constitution requires the population count every 10 years to reapportion seats among the states in the House of Representatives, said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a census consultant who covered the Census Bureau for the 2008 Obama Presidential Transition Team. She said the bureau must start the count on time."
... "John Roberts Just Called Out the Trump Administration for Lying." Richard Primus in a Politico Magazine opinion piece: "All administrations sometimes hide, shade or slant the truth -- and occasionally lie outright. The present administration is different in that it lies regularly, blatantly, heedlessly. In the census case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, called the administration on this behavior -- ever so politely and by the slimmest of margins. But still. Now the question is whether it will have the stomach to do so in other cases -- or even in this case, if it comes back to the court in the near future.... [Thursday], a majority composed of Chief Justice Roberts and the four more liberal justices called shenanigans." ...
... Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast: "'Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion for the Court. 'What was provided here was more of a distraction.'... Finally, there is a limit to how much this administration can lie and get away with it.... In Roberts's words, 'we are presented ... with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency&'s priorities and decisionmaking process.' 'Incongruent' is legalese for 'lied.' The Trump administration said one thing, but the evidence showed another.... There was good reason to doubt that Roberts, in particular, would decide the case this way. Just last year, he took the Trump administration at its word that the so-called 'Travel Ban,' which began, obviously, as a ban against Muslims entering the United States, was in fact a religion-neutral travel ban put in place for national-security reasons.... But, Roberts seemed to say, there is a limit to how much BS the Court will take." ...
... Roberts Tells Ross to Make up a Better Lie. Noah Feldman of Bloomberg looks at Chief Roberts' motivation: "On the one hand, the case is now back in [Judge Jesse] Furman's courtroom, where he will have to judge the legitimacy of some new explanation to be given by the Commerce Department.... On the other hand, Roberts gave the Commerce Department an extremely clear road map to explain what it should say.... Even if Furman finds this explanation insufficient, the Supreme Court could agree to hear an emergency appeal from Furman's ruling and rubber-stamp the citizenship question on the census.... Roberts's approach ... is to try to craft a middle ground that will make the Supreme Court seem less purely political than it would if he opted to join the conservatives. It is as if Roberts always wants to thwart a headline that says, 'Roberts Court Goes Fully Partisan Republican' on a major decision." Mrs. McC: Wow, Noah, that's so cynical.
Jacqueline Thomsen of the Hill: "The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday that political partisan gerrymandering cases present a question that courts cannot decide. The justices made the ruling in a pair of cases presented over district maps in Maryland and North Carolina, alleged to be instances of unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion that federal courts cannot consider such challenges. The opinion vacates previous rulings on the district maps in Maryland and North Carolina, and requests that the cases be dismissed 'for lack of jurisdiction.'" (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Update. The New York Times story, by Adam Liptak is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Forget "one person, one vote." Huge victory for Republicans and against democracy. Kagan read her dissent from the bench. ...
... "A Terrible Day for Democracy." Ian Millhiser of Think Progress: "The Supreme Court handed down two opinions on Thursday which could shape American democracy for decades." Millhiser discusses Roberts' rationales for the gerrymandering & Census cases. " Rucho and New York both fit within a pattern common to the Roberts Court. When the court's Republicans wish to move fast and hard on a particular issue, they hand down sweeping opinions that fundamentally remake American law. When they hand victories to liberals, by contrast, their decisions tend to be very narrow and offer little relief to future litigants."
Nina Totenberg & Bill Chapell of NPR: "The Supreme Court has ruled that police may, without a warrant, order blood drawn from an unconscious person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. The Fourth Amendment generally requires police to obtain a warrant for a blood draw. But in a 5-4 vote on Thursday, the court upheld a Wisconsin law that says people driving on a public road have impliedly consented to having their blood drawn if police suspect them of driving under the influence. It also said that 'exigent circumstances' permit police to obtain a blood sample without a warrant. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority vote. The decision conflicts with previous court rulings in which the justices ruled that a blood draw is a significant bodily intrusion into a person's privacy and that there are less intrusive ways of enforcing drunken driving laws against unconscious motorists.... The constitutional rights case produced four opinions -- two concurring and two in dissent. In a break with his conservatives benchmates, one of those dissents came from Justice Neil Gorsuch."
The Defeat of Decency. Julie Davis & Emily Cochrane of the New York Times: "The House on Thursday passed a Senate humanitarian aid package without any of the House's strict protections for migrant children in overcrowded border shelters after Speaker Nancy Pelosi capitulated to Republicans and Democratic moderates in a striking defeat. The vote came after a startling display of Democratic disarray and was an unusual setback for Ms. Pelosi, who has been adept at navigating the political complexities of a caucus split by powerful progressive and moderate factions that often work at cross purposes.... The final vote, 305 to 102, included far more Republicans in favor, 176, than Democrats, 129.... Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would voluntarily abide by some of the restrictions and rules that she had sought...." ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: I don't believe for one minute that the Trump administration will abide by any promises. ...
... For once thing, the Trump Gang is meaner than dirt. FOR INSTANCE..., here's how the Trump Mob honors the folks Trump calls "our great military":
... Thank You for Your Service. Your Wife & Mother Have Been Deported. Franco Ordoñez of NPR: "The Trump administration wants to scale back a program that protects undocumented family members of active-duty troops from being deported, according to attorneys familiar with those plans. The attorneys are racing to submit applications for what is known as parole in place after hearing from the wives and loved ones of deployed soldiers who have been told that option is 'being terminated.' The protections will only be available under rare circumstances, the lawyers said they've been told. 'It's going to create chaos in the military,' said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney who represents recruits and veterans in deportation proceedings. 'The troops can't concentrate on their military jobs when they're worried about their family members being deported.'"
Populist Prez* Still Working for the Common Man. Saleha Mohsin of Bloomberg: "The White House is developing a plan to cut taxes by indexing capital gains to inflation..., in a move that would largely benefit the wealthy and may be done in a way that bypasses Congress. Consensus is growing among White House officials to advance the proposal soon, the people said, to ensure the benefit takes effect before ... Donald Trump faces re-election in 2020. Revamping capital gains taxes through a rule or executive order likely would face legal challenges, a concern that reportedly prompted former President George H.W. Bush's administration to drop a similar plan. Most of the benefits would go to high-income households, with the top 1% receiving 86% of the benefit, according to estimates in 2018 by the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The policy could reduce tax revenue by $102 billion over a decade, the model found." Note to Trumpbots: You are so fucking stupid!
** Amateur Hour. Erin Banco & Asawin Suebsaeng of the Daily Beast: "Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claims the State Department was kept in the dark about key U.S. foreign-policy decisions during his time in the Trump administration because the president's son-in-law had effectively set up his own shadow operation. Jared Kushner was privately working on strategic partnerships with foreign countries and meeting discreetly with world leaders outside the formal structures of the U.S. government, according to Tillerson.... Because Kushner at times went around Tillerson and his staff, the State Department was not able to efficiently manage U.S. diplomacy.... At several points, Trump's ousted secretary of state vented his frustrations with being repeatedly undercut and left in the dark by Ivanka's husband. 'One of the challenges I think that everyone had... to learn to deal with was the role, the unique situation with the president's son-in-law [Kushner] and daughter [Ivanka] being part of the White House advisory team,' Tillerson said, according to the transcript The Daily Beast obtained.... The former chairman and CEO of Exxon said that on one ludicrous occasion he had bumped into his Mexican counterpart in Washington, D.C. purely by chance -- when the official had come to see Kushner without even informing the State Department that he was in the country." Tillerson was dining at a D.C. restaurant when the restaurateur told Tillerson the Mexican foreign secretary was seated nearby. ... Mrs. McC: The hubris of those punks Jared & Ivanka is breathtaking. ...
... Edward Wong & Sharon LaFraniere of the New York Times: “Saudi and Emirati leaders bypassed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017 when they told Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon ... about secret plan to impose a blockade on Qatar, a critical American ally in the Middle East. Mr. Tillerson was taken by surprise when the blockade was announced, according to a transcript of an interview with Mr. Tillerson last month by a congressional committee. Mr. Tillerson, who left the State Department in 2018, said he had no knowledge that the Saudis had told Mr. Kushner and Mr. Bannon about the blockade until a committee member asked him about it in the interview. 'It makes me angry,' Mr. Tillerson said.... 'The State Department's views were never expressed.' The account highlights the extent to which Mr. Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law and Middle East adviser, and Mr. Bannon were running foreign policy during the administration's first year in the world's most sensitive regions without telling Mr. Trump's top foreign policy officials and their agencies. The interview especially sheds light on the power wielded behind the scenes by Mr. Kushner." Read on. ...
... David Corn of Mother Jones: "In 2016, Vladimir Putin mounted a sweeping attack on the US election in part to help elect Donald Trump president. Less than three months after Trump took office..., Trump sent his new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to Moscow to meet Putin. At that meeting, Tillerson did not challenge or press Putin when the Russian president falsely denied that Moscow had perpetrated this assault on American democracy. Who says so? Tillerson himself.... Tillerson had received no instructions from Trump on how to address the issue of Putin's attack. And Trump showed no interest in any discussion of this important topic before or after the meeting." --s
Miranda Bryant of the Guardian: "A US government policy that restricts funding to organisations that conduct or support abortions has been linked to a 40% increase in [pregnancy] terminations in African countries that depend on American foreign aid, according to new research.... The study ... also found that implementation of the policy resulted in a reduction of the use of modern contraceptives and an increase in pregnancies. [A]lso known as the global gag rule..., Donald Trump reinstated the rule days after taking office in 2017 and expanded it significantly to prevent NGOs that do not sign from receiving any health assistance -- including HIV, nutrition and primary care.... Although the implied intention of the rule is to lower abortions in those countries, researchers suggested that because the abortion providers are often also suppliers of contraception it could have the opposite of effect, driving a rise in unwanted pregnancies and, in turn, abortions." --s
Nancy Scola of Politico: "Twitter said on Thursday it will begin labeling and demoting tweets from world leaders that violate its rules -- an action that appears aimed at ... Donald Trump's often incendiary attacks.... Under the new policy on so-called public interest tweets, Twitter will consider adding a notice about why rule-violating tweets are allowed to remain up. The company shared an example of such a label that reads, 'The Twitter Rules about abusive behavior apply to this Tweet. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public's interest for the Tweet to remain available.'... 'What they did to me on Twitter's incredible. I have millions and millions of followers, but I will tell you they make it very hard for people to join me on Twitter," [Trump] said [in a Fox 'News' interview]. "If I announced tomorrow that I'm going to become a nice liberal Democrat, I would pick up five times more followers.'"
Will Carless & Michael Corey of Reveal: "We wanted to know whether police officers nationwide were members of extremist groups.... We ultimately identified almost 400 users [through Facebook groups] we confirmed were indeed either currently employed as police officers, sheriffs or prison guards or had once worked in law enforcement. We then tried to join as many of the closed extremist groups as we could to see what members, and in particular officers, were saying inside. In a series of stories, we're laying out what we saw: officers engaging in conduct that calls into question their ability to serve their communities without prejudice. More than 50 police departments took action or launched internal investigations after we called them with our findings." --s
Caitlin Murray & Sam Morris of the Guardian: "The US women's national [soccer] team ... have each already earned $90,000 in bonuses [just to play for the quarter-finals].... Yet, if the US women were entitled to the same World Cup bonuses as the US men's national team, their rewards would already be six times larger. The women would've already earned around $550,000 each.... At most, US Soccer would pay the women $260,870 each, which is roughly a quarter of what the regular starters for the men would earn en route to winning a World Cup." --s ...
... Mrs. McCrabbie: Equal pay for equal work? Ha ha ha. Adding to the disparity Murray & Morris highlight is the fact that in the U.S., women's soccer is actually more popular than men's.
Share Article
Reader Comments (11)
Yes, Jared and Ivanka are amateurs, but Tillerson is a spineless turd. He let this clear breach of protocol and, well, governing, go on and said nothing at the time. He had a front-row seat to the destruction of our government and let it slide. I could speculate that he did it because "his" side was doing it so it was OK, but it really doesn't matter what his motivation was: His silence at the time and admitting it now amounts to treason.
Republicans claim to be big on "Chain of Command" and "Rule of Law" but they're really just selfish, sniveling idiots. My intolerance level has stepped up another notch.
@Nisky Guy: Tillerson's testimony is the best case ever against nepotism. The President*'s kids are initiating policies behind the backs of Senate-confirmed line authorities & seasoned (civil service) staff. When Trump talks about the "deep state," he means, among other things, "people who don't kowtow to my lovely children."
As for Tillerson's not "telling" on them, I don't think that was a mistake. In every administration, Cabinet members, White House staff, and career officials have to carry out the president's policies, or alternatively, they have to quit.
Tillerson, like Mattis, might have quit sooner rather than later if Trump hadn't had Kelly can him while he was on the can. At the same time, you may recall that pundits were urging Tillerson, Mattis, Cohn & others to stay on as "the adults in the room," and there may (or may not) have been some element of that sentiment in Tillerson's decision to stay on despite the antics of Trump's compromised, dimwitted children. As you no doubt recall, there was a lot of leaking of Tillerson's disagreements with Trump; he's the (first) guy quoted as calling Trump a "moron."
I don't hold Tillerson in high regard -- he reportedly made a mess of the State Department -- but I don't think he was wrong to keep relatively mum about his disagreements with Trump. Cabinet secretaries have recognized "who's the boss" throughout our history & done the jobs the boss assigned them.
Two Supreme Court questions I don't understand. If the Court gives the Commerce Dept another go about "explaining their rationale" for adding the census question, shouldn't that time extension also allow the other side to introduce more evidence, ie that smoking gun treasure trove of docs from the now-deceased GOP "Gerrymander King" that explicitly says the purpose is to promote white conservative ethno-supremacy, with the convenient money trail linking all the white supremacists?
And speaking of gerrymandering, how can it be that the Supreme Court, the highest legal body in the land, is suddenly incapable of ruling on gerrymandering cases? Had they not, even quite recently, opined repeatedly on the matter, demanding certain maps to be withdrawn & upholding others? It's inconceivable that yesterday they had the power and today suddenly their hands are legally tied for decades to come.
I intentionally avoided law school because our country is already teeming with lawyers (no criticism of those who did it, there are great careers to be had), but selective cherry picking of facts and positions seems anything but law and orderly.
@safari: As to your second question, the Supremes have sent gerrymandering cases back to lower courts to reconsider the maps and possibly order them redrawn. But I think in these instances, the rationale always has been that the plaintiffs had asserted that overt racial bias had been a factor in creating the maps.
As I understand yesterday's decision, Roberts said the courts didn't have the power to decide gerrymandering cases where the maps were drawn on the basis of political considerations -- i.e., corralling all the Democrats into a few districts -- but that wouldn't, in theory, prevent the courts from ruling that a legislature had gerrymandered its maps based on race. In fact, the case on which Johnny & the Dwarfs miraculously found for Republicans yesterday was one such case.
Therefore, I'm not sure this is the end of gerrymandering cases, especially in the South. Legislators in a state like New Hampshire, which is predominantly white, can gerrymander their little hearts out, but in the South where race and party politics are more-or-less parallel, Democrats could still argue that the maps were racist: i.e., black voters had been gerrymandered into "unfair" districts. Since that's exactly what happened in the North Carolina case decided yesterday against blacks/Democrats, it looks to me as if the level of proof of racial discrimination would be exceptionally high: Republicans would practically have to declare publicly, "Yes, we stuck all them Neegros into their own crappy ghetto districts so their votes wouldn't matter much."
As to the first question, that's really complicated. Since at least three separate suits are involved, I'll leave it to Amy Howe of ScotusBlog to explain that one. It's still unclear to me how this will play out, though experts have weighed in on both sides, predicting that the Supremes will, in the end, rule for the question & predicting they they can't possibly do that. Frankly, I think the confederate Supremes, including the Chief, can twist their little brains into gray-matter pretzels if the result hurts Democrats. See also Noah Feldman's analysis, linked above.
@Marie: Appreciate your clarifying comments above. Looking back it's no wonder Tillerson always looked like he was suffering from indigestion. What I long for––is for someone to make a montage of the ubiquitous "He's/she's a terrific person and will do a fantastic job!" said by that "moron" who fired most while others are languishing in jail.
The fact that Jared was/is holding his own court with foreign leaders is again emblematic of this administration's rogue state within a state. His bond, for instance, with MBS reflects class affinity, shared financial interests, and their self-conception as men who matter. BUT–-in policy it reflects a disregard for human rights, and their wish to cripple Iran in every way possible. So the two sit up in the wee small hours of a morning and plot nefarious means and their means are kept between the two of them. And we have allowed this and the other liaisons Jared has been involved in––he and Bibi smooch and hug––tight relationship there. And wasn't there that thing about Jared's security clearance? Was that ever settled or have we let that go like so much else.
Last night's debate was fun to watch–-lots of passion from many but as the video above shows Harris was the highlight ( and she planned it skillfully) when she confronted Biden. This debate had Trump front and center–-no holding back on attacks. It will be interesting to see if as more people get to know the candidates Biden will slide down the scales. Watching him I couldn't help thinking that his time has come and gone––he's had his day in the sun and it's now time for younger blood to take over. In any case I wish him well.
The Moderate Fallacy
Perhaps the clearest inference to be drawn from the first Democratic presidential debates is that so-called "moderates" no longer dominate the party. (This inference, BTW, took quite a blow yesterday when moderate House Democrats revolted against the progressive border bill and voted instead for the much more Trump-friendly Senate bill.)
Joe Biden, who continues to defend his now-indefensible Senate record, took a big hit in last night's debate, and other moderates like Tim Ryan & Michael Bennet have failed to register much support during or before the debates.
There are numerous reasons for the party's veering slightly left, but one that doesn't get much notice is one of the moderate Democrats' central arguments: that they, and they alone, have the inclination & capacity to compromise with Republicans and "get things done."
Really? Then how come Elizabeth Warren has "partnered with at least one Republican on 39 percent of the bills she’s introduced as chief sponsor since becoming a senator in 2013"? How come Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is working with Ted Cruz, of all people, on lobbyist legislation? Moderates, by contrast, cede progressive policies from the git-go. By starting in the middle, they have nowhere to go but righty-right. Progressive senators, because of the filibuster (which may soon become a thing of the past, I'll admit), compromise with Republicans all the time.
As the country becomes even more polarized (thanks, Supremes!), I suppose it's possible that progressives & wingers will never compromise again on anything. But there's no question that the most effective legislators, even now, know how to horse-trade.
P.S. Sorry to dominate the Comments this morning.
The five gutless wonders on the SCOTUS might not be able to do anything about partisan gerrymandering, but in most states people can--and in many states they have, and I expect more such measures.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/03/24/supreme-court-gerrymandering
The way I read it, the majority is exceedingly tired of the in-your-face corruption we've seen (from mostly the Right with its blatant support of minority government ) and when given a chance are doing something about it at the local and state level.
Capo Mitch has called anti-corruption measures "power grabs" for a good reason. They are.
And they are increasingly popular with the people who are tired of ceding all their power to the criminals who control them.
@ Marie for the breakdown, I'll check the links and do some more research on the topics.
I'm a bit surprised/astounded by the candidates' positions last night on "should an illegal immigrant be sent back" and "should illegal immigrants be covered by insurance". These are tricky issues that demand nuanced answers, bit the overall response by those asked was a simple, resounding no (to deportation) and yes (to insurance). I mostly agree, but given white aggreviance & immigration are such central tools in Dotard's strategy, the GOP are going to hammer the Dems for these positions, and I'm afraid a lot of whites will pull Trump's lever to stick it to the brown folk.
@PD: Experience is a two edged sword especially if like Biden you have trouble foreseeing consequences. If Swalwell and Harris can set him back on his heels with his past I fear to think what Trump and the republican assassins will make of it. They aren't constrained by reality. Starting with 'Biden was there at the beginning of the selling of America' complete with a new example every week.
Were I Trump, Biden would be my 2nd choice among the leading Democrat candidates.
@Marie: Ryan is a moderate? I heard him collate 911 and the Taliban who are even now planning the invasion. I think he's swallowed the Pentagon Kool-aid and needs to be reassigned.
In his case I fear 'moderate' refers not to his politics but to his intelligence.
@Cowichan
Good to see one of your pithy comments, neighbor.
It's been too long.
Since we're talking debates today, I thought I'd share this article by LOLGOP that I found over at Eclectablog:
https://www.eclectablog.com/2019/06/the-inexcusable-danger-of-needing-to-believe-donald-trump-is-an-assclown.html
I may be wrong about this, but I think the Democrats are falling into the trap described in the article of thinking that Trump is incompetent at what he does. Yes, he's stupid beyond bearing, mentally unstable in the extreme, narcissistic, sadistic and just plain evil, but -- and he doesn't need intelligence for this, just gut instinct -- he's gifted at grifting, a perfect example of the idiot savant in that regard.
Whoever ultimately ends up facing off against him in the general election is going to have to take this into account if they hope to bring him down.