RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Rise of Christian Nationalism in America, or How to Legislate Evil and Punish the Poor Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56423"><span class="small">Liz Theoharis, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Monday, 28 September 2020 08:50

Theoharis writes: "On August 26th, during the Republican National Convention, Vice President Mike Pence closed out his acceptance speech with a biblical sleight of hand."

Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty Images)
Vice President Mike Pence. (photo: Getty Images)


The Rise of Christian Nationalism in America, or How to Legislate Evil and Punish the Poor

By Liz Theoharis, TomDispatch

28 September 20

 


It certainly tells you something about our political moment. Of the two women who were reported to be Donald Trump’s leading candidates to jam instantly into the Supreme Court seat of the barely dead Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the first, 48-year-old Appeals Court judge Amy Coney Barrett, is an extreme anti-abortion jurist. She also belongs to the People of Praise, a Catholic cult church that reportedly may have partially inspired Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale. How much more “supreme” could you get? The second, Cuban-American Appeals Court judge Barbara Lagoa, just concurred in a Florida court ruling that took the vote away from perhaps 100,000 or more former felons until they pay their often unknown court debts, “a Jim Crow–style gambit to keep returning citizens locked out of the voting booth forever” and perhaps lose Florida for Joe Biden. So Catholic charismatics versus the Latino vote (though Lagoa is reputedly also distinctly anti-abortion)? Tough decision. In the end, Trump chose Barrett.

White evangelical Christians are almost literally part of what might now be considered Trump, Inc. (One of them is, of course, vice president and another the secretary of state.) In a July Pew poll, a staggering 82% of evangelicals, up from 2016, said they would vote for The Donald in the coming election. Though the president has indeed promoted himself as, in essence, a Christian nationalist (and an educational one, too), he is, of course, nothing of the sort. It couldn’t be clearer that, in reality, he’s a Trump nationalist, a Trump firster, a Trump evangelical, and nothing more.

With this instant Supreme Court nomination of his, we’re now all plunged into a world of Republican hypocrisy of a sort that once might have been unimaginable. After all, the same Mitch McConnell trying to rush the new nominee through at warp speed on the eve of election 2020 protested Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination of the exceedingly moderate Merrick Garland in 2016, almost nine months before a presidential election, this way: "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

Now, just over five weeks before the next election, he and his Republican colleagues are hustling to do the very thing he rejected on supposed principle the last time around. Unlike TomDispatch regular and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign Reverend Liz Theoharis, I am, to say the least, no expert on the Bible. Still, I’d put my bottom dollar on the likelihood that it has something to say about the sort of mind-boggling hypocrisy that’s now playing out in Washington. It’s an ever uglier world out there and, as Theoharis makes clear today, some credit for that ugliness must be given to the rise not just of a presidentially backed version of white supremacy, but to the growth of a Christian nationalist movement in America. Tom

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


The Rise of Christian Nationalism in America
Or How to Legislate Evil and Punish the Poor

n August 26th, during the Republican National Convention, Vice President Mike Pence closed out his acceptance speech with a biblical sleight of hand. Speaking before a crowd at the Fort McHenry National Monument in Baltimore, he exclaimed, “Let’s fix our eyes on Old Glory and all she represents. Let’s fix our eyes on this land of heroes and let their courage inspire.” In doing so, he essentially rewrote a passage from the New Testament’s Book of Hebrews: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross.”

There’s nothing new, of course, about an American politician melding religion and politics on the campaign trail. Still, Pence’s decision to replace Jesus with the Stars and Stripes raised eyebrows across a range of religious and political persuasions. Indeed, the melding of Old Glory and Christ provided the latest evidence of the rising influence of Christian nationalism in the age of Trump.

It’s no longer hard to find evidence of just how deeply Christian nationalism influences our politics and policymaking. During the pandemic, the Bible has repeatedly been used (and distorted) to justify Covid-19 denialism and government inaction, not to speak of outright repression. In late March, as cities were locking down and public health officials were recommending strict quarantine measures, one of Donald Trump’s first acts was to gather his followers at the White House for what was billed as a “National Day of Prayer” to give Americans the strength to press on through death and difficulty.

Later in the spring, protests against pandemic shutdowns, funded with dark money from the likes of the Koch Brothers, demanded that states reopen for business and social distancing guidelines be loosened. (Forget about masking of any sort.) At them, printed protest signs said things like: “Even Pharaoh Freed Slaves in a Plague” and “Texas will not take the Mark of the Beast.” And even as faith communities struggled admirably to adjust to zoom worship services, as well as remote pastoral care and memorials, President Trump continued to fan the flames of religious division, declaring in-person worship “essential,” no matter that legal experts questioned his authority to do so.

And speaking of his version of Christian nationalism, no one should forget the June spectacle in Lafayette Square near the White House, when Trump had racial-justice protestors tear-gassed so he could stroll to nearby St. John’s Church and pose proudly on its steps displaying a borrowed bible. Though he flashed it to the photographers, who can doubt how little time he’s spent within its pages. (Selling those same pages is another matter entirely. After all, a Bible he signed in the wake of that Lafayette Square event is now on sale for nearly $40,000.)

The Battle for the Bible in American History

To understand how power is wielded in America by wealthy politicians and their coteries of extremists in 2020, you have to consider the role of religion in our national life. An epic battle for the Bible is now underway in a country that has been largely ceded to white evangelical Christian nationalists. Through a well-funded network of churches and nonprofits, universities, and think tanks, and with direct lines to the nation’s highest political officials, they’ve had carte-blanche to set the terms of what passes for religious debate in this country and dictate what morality even means in our society.

Under Trump, such religious nationalism has reached a fever pitch as a reactionary movement that includes technocratic billionaires, televangelists, and armed militias has taken root with a simple enough message: God loves white Christian America, favors small government and big business, and rewards individualism and entrepreneurship. Meanwhile, the poor, people of color, and immigrants are blamed for society’s problems even as the rich get richer in what’s still the wealthiest country in the history of the world.

The dangers posed by today’s Christian nationalists are all too real, but the battle for the Bible itself is not new in America. In the 1700s and 1800s, slaveholders quoted the book of Philemon and lines from St. Paul’s epistles to claim that slavery was ordained by God. They also ripped the pages of Exodus from bibles they gave to the enslaved.  During the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, churches and politicians alike preached a "prosperity gospel" that extolled the virtues of industrial capitalism.

Decades later, segregationists continued to use stray biblical verses to rubberstamp Jim Crow practices, while in the late 1970s the Moral Majority helped to mainstream a new generation of Christian extremists into national politics. In my own youth, I remember politicians quoting Thessalonians in the lead up to the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act as proof that God believes in work-requirements for public assistance programs.

Students of religion and history know that, although such theological battles have often tipped disastrously toward the forces of violence, deprivation, and hate, Christian religious thinking has also been a key ingredient in positive social change in this country. Escaped slave Harriet “Moses” Tubman understood the Underground Railroad as a Christian project of liberation, while escaped slave Frederick Douglass fought for abolition through churches across the north in the pre-Civil War years. A century later, near the end of his life, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained how, to achieve his universal dream of justice, a beloved community of God would be built through a “freedom church of the poor.”

After all, in every chapter of American history, abolitionists, workers, labor organizers, civil rights leaders, and other representatives of the oppressed have struggled for a better nation not just in streets and workplaces, but in the pulpit, too. In the wreckage of the present Trumpian moment, with a fascistic, white nationalism increasingly ascendant, people of conscience would do well to follow suit.

The “Psychological Bird” of Bad Religion

In my book Always with Us? What Jesus Really Said About the Poor, I focus on a reality that has long preoccupied me: how, in this country, the Bible has so often been manipulated to obscure its potentially emancipatory power; in particular, the way in which what theologian Jim Wallis has called the most famous biblical passage on the poor (from the Gospel of Matthew) -- “the poor will be always with us” -- has been misused.

Since I was a young girl, scarcely a week has passed in which I haven’t heard someone quoting Matthew as an explanation for why poverty is eternal and its mitigation reserved at best for charity or philanthropy (but certainly not for government). The logic of such thinking runs through so many of our religious institutions including what’s now known as “evangelical Christianity,” but also our legislatures, courts, military, schools, and more. It hasn’t just shaped the minds of young Christians but has helped to spiritualize (and cement in place) poverty, while implicitly or even explicitly justifying ever greater inequality in this society.

Today, the idea that poverty is the result of bad behavior, laziness, or sin rather than decisions made by those with power is distinctly ascendant in Donald Trump’s and Mitch McConnell’s Washington. Biblical passages like that one in Matthew have become another ideological tool brandished by reactionaries and the wealthy to deflect attention from this country’s systemic failures.

Consider, for example, the historic development of what’s often known as the “Bible Belt” (or alternatively the “Poverty Belt”). It sweeps across the South, from North Carolina to Mississippi, Tennessee to Alabama, home to poor people of every race. It represents the deepest, most contiguous area of poverty in the United States made possible in part by heretical theology, biblical misinterpretation, and Christian nationalism.

The convergence of poverty and religion in the Bible Belt has a long history, stretching back to the earliest settler-colonists in the slave era. It echoed through the system of Jim Crow that had the region in its grip until the Civil Rights years and the modern political concept of “the solid South” (once Democratic, now Republican). Within its bounds lies a brutal legacy of divide and conquer that, to this day, politicizes the Bible by claiming that poverty results from sins against God and teaches poor white people in particular that, although they may themselves have little or nothing, they are at least "better" than people of color.

At the end of the bloody march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1965, Martin Luther King explained the age-old politics of division in the region this way:

“If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow... And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man... And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.”

That “psychological bird” was seasoned and cooked in a volatile mix of racist pseudo-science, economic orthodoxy, and bad religion. In fact, it retained its enormous power in large part by using the Bible and a version of Christianity to validate plunder and human suffering on a staggering scale. De jure Jim Crow may no longer exist, but its history haunts America to this day, and the Bible continues to be weaponized to validate anti-poor, white racist political power.

As jobs and opportunity continue to vanish in twenty-first-century America and churches stand among the last truly functional institutions in many communities, the Bible, however interpreted, still influences daily life for millions. How it’s understood and preached affects the political and moral direction of the country. Consider that those Bible Belt states -- where Christian nationalism (which regularly displays its own upside-down version of the Bible) now reigns supreme -- account for more than 193 electoral college votes and so will play a key role in determining the fate of Donald Trump and Mike Pence in November.

I had my own experience with that version of biblical and theological interpretation and its growing role in our national politics in June 2019 during a hearing of the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives. Its subject was poverty in America and the economic realities of struggling families. A racially and geographically diverse group of leaders of the Poor People’s Campaign (of which I’m the co-chair) were invited to testify on those realities. Alongside us that day were two Black pastors invited by Republican congressmen to stand as examples of how faith and hard work is the only recipe for a good and stable life for the impoverished.

We had come to present what we’ve called the Poor People’s Moral Budget, a study showing that the United States does have the money to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, and more, just not the political will to do so. In response, members of the committee turned to the same tired stereotypes about why so many of us in such a wealthy country are poor. Some cited the supposed failure of the 1960s War on Poverty as evidence that programs of social uplift just don’t work, while ignoring the dramatic way politicians had undercut those initiatives in the years that followed. Like those pastors, others replied with tales of their own success rising out of economic hardship via bootstrap individualism and they plugged Christian charity as the way to alleviate poverty. I listened to them all as they essentially promoted a heretical theology that claimed people suffer from poverty largely because they’re estranged from God and lack a deep enough faith in Jesus.

That day, the walls of that House committee room rang with empty words twisting what the Bible actually says about the poor. One Republican representative typically remarked that, although he was familiar with the Bible, he had never found anyplace in it “where Jesus tells Caesar to care for the poor.” Another all-too-typically suggested that Christian charity, not government-sponsored programs, is the key to alleviating poverty.

Someone less familiar with the arguments of such politicians might have been surprised to hear so many of them seeking theological cover. As a biblical scholar and a student of the history of social movements, I know well how religious texts actually instruct us to care for the poor and dispossessed. As a long-time organizer, I’ve learned that those in power now regularly, even desperately, seek to abuse and distort the liberating potential of our religious traditions.

Indeed, in response to that representative, Reverand William Barber, my Poor People’s Campaign co-chair, and I pointed out how interesting it was that he identified himself with Caesar (not necessarily the most flattering comparison imaginable, especially as biblical Christianity polemicizes against Caesar and the Roman empire). Then I detailed for him many of the passages and commandments in the Bible that urge us to organize society around the needs of the poor, forgive debts, pay workers a living wage, rather than favoring either the rich or “Caesar.” That, of course, is indeed the formula of the Trump era (where, in the last six pandemic months, the 643 wealthiest Americans raked in an extra $845 billion, raising their combined wealth by 29%). I also pointed out that the most effective poverty-reduction programs like Head Start are federally funded, neither philanthropic nor a matter of Christian charity.

Good News from the Poor

In the Poor People’s Campaign, we often start our organizing meetings by showing a series of color-coded maps of the country. The first has the states that have passed voter suppression laws since 2013; the next, those with the highest poverty rates; then, those that have not expanded Medicaid but have passed anti-LGBTQ laws. And so it goes. Our final map displays the states densest with self-identified evangelical Protestants.

I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that those maps overlap almost perfectly, chiefly in the Bible Belt, but also in the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic states, and even in parts of the Northeast and West. The point is to show how inextricably connected the battle for voting rights, healthcare, and other critical resources is to the battle for the Bible. The stakes are measured in the health of the entire nation, because the same politicians who manipulate the Bible and the right to vote to win elections then pass immoral budgets and policies.

When Vice President Pence altered that line from the Book of Hebrews, he was charging headfirst onto that very blood-soaked battlefield with a desecrated Bible in hand. The question is: why should he and other Christian nationalists have the power to define Christianity? If they are so intent on “fixing their eyes on Old Glory,” shouldn’t they also fix their eyes on what Jesus actually said?

The Greek word evangelia, out of which “evangelical” comes, means bringing good news to those made poor by systems of exploitation. The Bible’s good news, also defined as gospel, talks again and again about captives being freed, slaves released, and all who are oppressed being taken care of. It’s said that were you to cut out every one of its pages that mentions poverty, the Bible would fall apart. And when you actually read the words on those pages, you see that the gospel doesn’t talk about the inevitability of poverty or the need for charity, but the responsibilities of the ruling authorities to all people and the possibility of abundance for all.

At a time when 43.5% of Americans are poor or one fire, storm, health-care crisis, pandemic, eviction, or job loss from poverty, it couldn’t be more important for Americans to begin to reckon with this reality and our moral obligation to end it. Instead, politicians pass voter suppression laws, kick kids off food programs, and allow the poisoning of our water, air, and land, while Christian nationalist religious leaders bless such policies and cherry-pick biblical verses to justify them as all-American. Consider such a reality not simply a matter of a religious but a political, economic, and moral crisis that, in the midst of a pandemic, is pushing this country ever closer to the brink of spiritual death.

If America is still worth saving, this is no longer a battle anyone should sit out.



Liz Theoharis, a TomDispatch regular, is a theologian, ordained minister, and anti-poverty activist. Director of the Kairos Center for Religions, Rights and Social Justice at Union Theological Seminary in New York City and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, she is the author of Always With Us? What Jesus Really Said About the Poor.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel (the second in the Splinterlands series) Frostlands, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
It's Great That Athletes Are Speaking Out. But Some of Them Are Spouting Nonsense Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54550"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2020 12:45

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "Unfortunately, along with these informed and articulate voices, we've also heard some downright silly opinions that threaten to reduce athlete's voices to the old dumb-jock stereotype - as well as undermine progress toward social equality."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Getty Images)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Getty Images)


It's Great That Athletes Are Speaking Out. But Some of Them Are Spouting Nonsense

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles Times

27 September 20

 

fter years of being told to “shut up and play,” athletes have finally fought their way out of the locker room and begun publicly voicing their opinions. Some people would prefer we had remained silent sentinels. But that would be like asking clergy who had become aware of sexual abuse to “shut up and pray” rather than speak out.

Athletes have worked hard and sacrificed a lot to be taken seriously as more than stereotypical dumb jocks. Professional sports organizations and owners have threatened athletes with fines and even with the loss of their careers to silence their voices. But this last year saw athletes across a broad spectrum of sports — from basketball’s LeBron James to baseball’s Clayton Kershaw to tennis’ Naomi Osaka — forming a chorus for humanity.

Unfortunately, along with these informed and articulate voices, we’ve also heard some downright silly opinions that threaten to reduce athlete’s voices to the old dumb-jock stereotype — as well as undermine progress toward social equality.

Earlier this month, former NFL player Herschel Walker released a video declaring his rejection of Black Lives Matter because two of the organizers claimed they were Marxists: “Is this who you are supporting? A trained Marxist tells you they are anti-government, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-everything.” 

Everything about this statement is misleading, illogical, or simply wrong (anti-everything?). Walker shows a clear lack of understanding of what BLM is or who supports it. There are some organizations that use the name Black Lives Matter, but they are only a small part of a larger movement that encompasses many loosely affiliated groups and individuals. Civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson describes the movement as including “all who publicly declare that black lives matter and devote their time and energy accordingly.” How a Black person like Walker doesn’t know this is astounding and irresponsible.

If he had done any reading on the subject, he’d have learned that four different polls have suggested the BLM protests were the largest movement in America’s history, with anywhere from 15 million to 26 million people participating. These many millions of Americans aren’t espousing “Marxist” ideology, they are protesting anti-American racism.

Walker’s hasty generalization, which uses a tiny sample to reach a conclusion about a far larger group, is the bedrock of most racist claims. The same kind of flawed reasoning has been used to lump protesters, rioters and looters together in a single group because they were in the same location. President Trump has openly admitted to lying to the public about the seriousness of the pandemic, to grabbing women’s crotches, to deliberately walking in on semi-naked teenagers during pageants, and to cheating on his wife. Should we conclude from his behavior that all Republicans are lying sexual predators and adulterers? Of course not, and, like Black Lives Matter supporters, they shouldn’t be lumped together as a single monolith.

And then there’s beach volleyball gold-medal Olympian Kerri Walsh Jennings, one of the most amazing athletes I’ve ever seen. On Sept. 6, Jennings posted on Instagram a lengthy justification for going shopping without a mask, which she called “a little exercise in being brave.” Faced with a lot of backlash, Jennings posted more rambling mish-mosh about how “we have to stay mindful of the FACT that our freedoms have slowly been taken from us with our consent.”

Though Jennings said she was “advocating critical thinking,” there was none in either of her explanations. Which freedoms are we giving up? The freedom to potentially transmit a deadly disease to other shoppers? Mask refuseniks tend to see themselves as brave freedom-lovers rather than what they really are: the modern-day versions of the doubters who, when it was discovered that microscopic organisms caused deadly diseases, laughed and said, “If you can’t see them, they don’t exist.”

While it’s true that everyone has the freedom to be ignorant, the ignorance of mask resisters threatens the health and lives of others, making them a major public health hazard. Their kind of “bravery” has contributed to 200,000 American deaths.

Novak Djokovic, the world’s No. 1-ranked men’s tennis player, is another athlete who has abused his megaphone. He organized a tennis tournament at the height of the COVID pandemic in June at which players and fans participated without masks or social distancing. He and his wife contracted the virus, as did other participants, yet Djokovic argued that “if I had the chance to do the Adria Tour again, I would.” Fellow tennis star Dominic Thiem, who played in the tournament, defended Djokovic, saying, “He didn’t break any laws.”

Being responsible role models during a worldwide pandemic that has killed nearly a million people isn’t about laws; it’s about concern and respect for the lives of others, especially the others who can’t afford to miss work or don’t have access to good healthcare.

When I think of the personal sacrifices of athletes like Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Colin Kaepernick, and the harsh price they all paid for using their voices to advocate for a more equitable and safer world for everyone, it’s distressing to see other athletes tarnish that legacy. Yes, they have a right to speak out, but they also have a responsibility to use their voices to improve the world rather than harm it.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Report: Trump Thinks His Attempts to Steal the Election Are Rip-Roaringly Hilarious Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=44994"><span class="small">Bess Levin, Vanity Fair</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2020 11:52

Levin writes: "And while Trump and his sycophants might think it's hilarious to sow doubt about the validity of the election and whether or not he’ll accept the outcome, not everyone is so tickled."

Donald Trump's rally in Tulsa. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)
Donald Trump's rally in Tulsa. (photo: Leah Millis/Reuters)


Report: Trump Thinks His Attempts to Steal the Election Are Rip-Roaringly Hilarious

By Bess Levin, Vanity Fair

27 September 20


Undermining democracy is a real gas.

s you’ve likely heard by now, Donald Trump has spent months trying to undermine confidence in the election, a plot that reached a crescendo this week when he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and called for “the ballots” to be thrown out so that he can just be declared the winner. Obviously, the remarks were deeply disturbing to people who don’t want to live under an authoritarian regime reminiscent of Turkmenistan. But for Trump? Well, apparently he thought they were a real gas.

The Daily Beast reports that, according two people familiar with the matter, Trump was glued to the cable-news coverage in the hours after he made his comments to the press and remarked privately how amusing it was that his suggesting he’ll stay in office no matter what was vexing the media and liberals. “He seemed to get a real kick out of it,” one of the sources said, adding that Trump seemed to relish making the press, in his words, “go crazy” over his disdain for democratic norms. “[The president] wasn’t going to be playing by their rules on this just to make them feel comfortable,” the source said.

Of course, it’s not the media and liberals’ “rules”; a peaceful transfer of power is actually dictated by the Constitution, and it’s one of the ways you can tell the difference between the United States and countries where dictators rule. And while Trump and his sycophants might think it’s hilarious to sow doubt about the validity of the election and whether or not he’ll accept the outcome, not everyone is so tickled. Per the Daily Beast:

Outside the confines of Trumpland, few were laughing. Some of the president’s own former senior administration officials said they were appalled by the comments, finding them both utterly believable indications of intent and further evidence that the man they once served wasn’t just unfit for office, but a threat to public safety. “I continue to be concerned that the President’s reckless rhetoric will incite violence from fringe extremists,” said Elizabeth Neumann, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security for counterterrorism and threat prevention who has since endorsed Joe Biden. “All leaders must understand how precarious a moment we are in, which has been noted by multiple law enforcement and intelligence briefings. They have a responsibility to be careful with their words.”

According to a Justice Department prosecutor, there is internal concern in some department circles that Attorney General William Barr will join postelection lawsuits on behalf of the Trump campaign or its allies…. Any Justice Department intervention in election-related lawsuits would have “tremendous practical effect,” the prosecutor said. In addition to the quality of its lawyering—particularly within the solicitor-general’s office, should any case reach the Supreme Court—the attorneys hold prestige in federal appellate courts. Appointing a ninth Supreme Court justice to fill the seat held by the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsberg would likely act as a firewall should crucial election decisions reach the high court—something Trump and his vice president have mused about openly.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not response the Daily Beast’s request for comment, but as the prosecutor put it, Barr “is without limit to what he’ll do.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: There Should Be No Doubt Why Trump Nominated Amy Coney Barrett Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51459"><span class="small">Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2020 10:40

Toobin writes: "Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump has nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, was born in 1972, so she can expect to spend several decades shaping both American law and American life."

President Trump plans to announce on Saturday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is his choice for the Supreme Court. (photo: Samuel Corum/NYT)
President Trump plans to announce on Saturday that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is his choice for the Supreme Court. (photo: Samuel Corum/NYT)


There Should Be No Doubt Why Trump Nominated Amy Coney Barrett

By Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker

27 September 20

 

my Coney Barrett, whom President Trump has nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, was born in 1972, so she can expect to spend several decades shaping both American law and American life. As it happens, a year before Barrett’s birth, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., then a prominent lawyer in Richmond, Virginia, and later a Supreme Court Justice himself, wrote a now famous memorandum to the United States Chamber of Commerce, arguing that businesses needed to take a more aggressive hand in shaping public policy. “The American economic system is under broad attack,” he wrote, from, specifically, the consumer, environmental, and labor movements. He added that “the campus is the single most dynamic source” of that attack. To counter it, Powell suggested that business interests should make a major financial commitment to shaping universities, so that the “bright young men” of tomorrow would hear messages of support for the free-enterprise system. A little less than a decade later, a pair of law professors named Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia signed on as the first faculty advisers to a fledgling organization for conservative law students called the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The efforts of the Federalist Society were lavishly funded by the business interests invoked by Powell, and it has trained a generation or two of future leaders. Not all of them have been “bright young men.” Some are women, including Barrett, and her confirmation would vindicate Powell’s plan and transform the Supreme Court.

Barrett made an appealing first impression in 2017, during her confirmation hearings to the federal bench. She and her husband are the parents of seven children. For many years, she was a popular professor at Notre Dame Law School, which she also attended and from which she graduated summa cum laude. She clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Scalia. As a judge on the Seventh Circuit, she has been a reliable conservative voice. Even liberal peers in the academy find her personable. She will probably do well in providing the artful non-answers that are the currency of Supreme Court confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, just as she did in 2017.

But there should be no doubt about why Barrett has been chosen. Much of the commentary about her selection will focus on the issue of abortion, and her likely role in overturning Roe v. Wade. During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to appoint Justices who would vote to overrule that landmark, and with his three selections, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, he appears to have delivered. Barrett is not only a member of a conservative organization within the Catholic Church; her legal writings, and the views of some who know her, suggest that she would overturn Roe.

Still, it’s worth remembering the real priorities of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, in this nomination. They’re happy to accommodate the anti-abortion base of the Republican Party, but an animating passion of McConnell’s career has been the deregulation of political campaigns. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision brought the issue to wide public attention, but McConnell has been crusading about it for decades. He wants the money spigot kept open, so that he can protect his Senate majority and the causes for which it stands. This, too, is why the Federalist Society has been so lavishly funded over the years, and why it has expanded from a mere campus organization into a national behemoth for lawyers and students. Under Republican Presidents, Federalist Society events have come to operate as auditions for judicial appointments. The corporate interests funding the growth of the Federalist Society probably weren’t especially interested in abortion, but they were almost certainly committed to crippling the regulatory state.

Barrett is a product of this movement, and not just because she clerked for Scalia. Her writings and early rulings reflect it. Her financial-disclosure form shows that, in recent years, she has received about seven thousand dollars in honoraria from the Federalist Society and went on ten trips funded by it. But it’s not as if Barrett was bought; she was already sold. The judge has described herself as a “textualist” and an “originalist”—the same words of legal jargon that were associated with Scalia. (She believes in relying on the specific meaning of the words in statutes, not on legislators’ intent. She interprets the Constitution according to her belief in what the words meant when the document was ratified, not what the words mean now.) But these words are abstractions. In the real world, they operate as an agenda to crush labor unions, curtail environmental regulation, constrain the voting rights of minorities, limit government support for health care, and free the wealthy to buy political influence.

It should go without saying that the nomination and the expected confirmation of Barrett in the final days before a Presidential election represent a paramount act of hypocrisy for McConnell and the other Republicans who denied even a hearing to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, in 2016. But the fact that these Republicans are willing to risk that charge shows how important the Supreme Court is to them. Far more than a senator, a Supreme Court Justice can deliver on the agenda. The war on abortion is just the start.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Far Will Trump Go to Keep the White House? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6853"><span class="small">Frank Rich, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Sunday, 27 September 2020 08:34

Rich writes: "The unseemly instant replacement of RBG, which is not favored by most Americans, is unlikely to help Republican electoral prospects in general, and could sabotage incumbent senators in tight races."

Mitch McConnell. (photo: Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)
Mitch McConnell. (photo: Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)


How Far Will Trump Go to Keep the White House?

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

27 September 20


Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today, Trump’s military threat to hold on to the White House, what the Democrats can do about the Supreme Court, and New York’s state coronavirus-vaccine plan.

n comments this week, Donald Trump repeatedly declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the White House, and also stated that a ninth Supreme Court justice is needed to decide the election, telegraphing an intention to take it out of the hands of voters. How seriously should we take these statements?

The possible doomsday scenarios for Election Day — or election week, or month, or months — are so many that we can no longer keep count. You could spend the rest of the day reading up on all the possibilities, from the exploitation of legal loopholes in the Electoral College to the destruction of ballots. Trump knows he’s losing as of now and will gladly provoke a constitutional crisis to delegitimize or steal the election, sow chaos, and delay or challenge any count not going his way. And he has teams of Republican lawyers and state lawmakers, not to mention the Attorney General, to do his bidding. He has also vowed to send law-enforcement officers to polling places in battleground states, no doubt to intimidate the voters he wants to suppress.

Next to those concrete actions, his statements casting doubt on our sacrosanct tradition of a peaceful transition of power might seem like his usual made-for-cable-news bluster — hyperbolic theatrics designed to distract from the real subterfuge at hand. The only flaw in that argument is that it will not be Trump who decides whether there will be a peaceful transition or not; it will be his troops. By troops I don’t mean the American military, which is unlikely to bear arms to support any Trump effort to cling to the White House in defeat, but Trump’s own troops, who have formed a rogue military of their own. His language has already given them the signal to do whatever the hell they want.

Those troops are exemplified by Michigan United for Liberty, the right-wing extremist cell that posted violent threats against state officials on highly trafficked private Facebook pages in response to pandemic health measures and then turned up with assault weapons in the Senate balcony in Lansing as legislators (some donning bulletproof vests) gathered below. They include the likes of right-wing militia wannabes like Kyle Rittenhouse, whose killing of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was condoned by Trump. They include the armed cohort who showed up to “provide security” in Louisville after the grand jury rendered its verdict on the Breonna Taylor murder.

The violent actors on the left that Trump rails about also exist, but in relatively tiny numbers. A June report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies on “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States” finds that “right-wing extremists perpetrated two-thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020.” They are locked and loaded to mount a violent response to a Trump defeat whether the president explicitly invites them to or not.

The Vichy Republicans in Washington, meanwhile, will be hiding under the desks. While some of them have come out in favor of a peaceful transfer of power in the wake of Trump’s threats, none of them had the guts to criticize him by name. They are all very concerned in the patented manner of Susan Collins. It was rather remarkable to watch Lindsey Graham tell the audience at Fox & Friends that he “can assure” a peaceful denouement to the election during the same week when the worthlessness of his word on late-term Supreme Court nominees was on constant display in campaign ads across the land.

With Mitt Romney’s support, Mitch McConnell appears confident that he has enough Republican senators lined up to quickly confirm the next Supreme Court justice, despite the fact that no nominee has yet been named. Is there anything the Democrats can do?
Beyond speechifying and modest delay tactics, there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this confirmation. Senate Republicans don’t even care who the nominee is.

My wish, unlikely to be honored, is for the Democrats to let the GOP ramrod the nominee through the process as quickly as possible to make sure the dirty deed is done before the election. The unseemly instant replacement of RBG, which is not favored by most Americans, is unlikely to help Republican electoral prospects in general, and could sabotage incumbent senators in tight races. An internal GOP poll of battleground states conducted last weekend, as reported by the Washington Post, found that 28 percent were more likely to vote for Trump if a nominee were confirmed by the election, and 38 percent less likely to. Other polls over the past year have consistently found that overturning Roe v. Wade, a strong possibility for a Trump Court, is even less popular nationally than Trump himself. As recently as June, a CBS News survey found that only 29 percent wanted to overturn Roe, while 63 percent wanted it to stay in place. Writing in the Cook Political Report, David Wasserman crunched the numbers of a YouGov poll in 2016 and found that variously 20 to 25 percent of Trump voters in the battleground states of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, and Wisconsin were pro-choice.

As is the case now, there was much bravura talk among Republicans about how the Brett Kavanaugh battle would be a political plus in the 2018 midterms, which followed Kavanaugh’s confirmation by a month. In reality, its effect was close to nil. The Democrats retook the House by a landslide. In the Senate races, three GOP candidates won in red states (Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota), but five GOP candidates lost in states Trump had won two years earlier (Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin). The campaign of Martha McSally, who lost her Senate race in Arizona, even released a memo blaming her defeat partly on the Kavanaugh confirmation.

McSally, who was subsequently appointed to fill out John McCain’s Senate term after his death, is blindly rallying behind Trump and McConnell’s Supreme Court gambit regardless — never mind that polls consistently show her well behind in her reelection bid. And other shaky Republican incumbents may go down with her. It’s a lose-lose situation for Collins in blue Maine, Cory Gardner in blue Colorado, and Thom Tillis in purple North Carolina. If they don’t vote for the nominee, Trump will trash them and depress their vote among the GOP base. If they do vote to confirm, they lose more of the moderate voters who are already defecting. What none of them seem to realize is that Trump doesn’t give a damn if they all go down as long as he holds on to the White House: He plans to “govern” through the courts and executive orders, not Congress, in his second term, much as he has tried to in the first.

The possibility that somehow Trump’s nominee might not be confirmed if the process drifts past the election into a lame-duck Senate session is faint. Better to accept reality quickly rather than let Trump continue to milk the confirmation battle to distract from his catastrophic failure to stand up to the coronavirus in the final weeks of the campaign. The Democrats have more to gain by enhancing their chances to win back a Senate majority that will start to reverse the damage Trump has done to the courts and every other institution in the country.

Andrew Cuomo has announced that New York State will review any coronavirus vaccine approved by the federal government before distributing it in the state, and that he doesn’t “trust the federal government’s opinion.” Is this a step in the right direction?
For sure. Trump and his flunkies have destroyed the credibility of the CDC and are poised to do the same for the FDA. Public confidence in a vaccine has already fallen from 72 percent to 51 percent over the course of the pandemic. By appointing a panel of scientists to vouch for the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, Cuomo will help restore the trust that is essential to public health. And the New York State process will have outsize clout nationwide, even internationally, given the likelihood that a rejected vaccine would create legal and economic havoc for its Big Pharma producer. Other governors are likely to mimic the New York plan to vouch for a vaccine as well.

Cuomo’s action — much like his effort to coordinate the response to the virus among neighboring states — also offers a paradigm of how governing might work in the event Trump is reelected. As Trump told the states they were on their own in dealing with the pandemic, states will increasingly go their own way on many other matters in a second term, court battles notwithstanding. Like New York, California, which outlined new zero-emission standards for passenger cars last week, isn’t waiting. Such actions are no substitute for an honest and competent federal government, but it is, at least, a relatively peaceful way for the anti-Trump states of America to conduct a civil war.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 Next > End >>

Page 342 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN