How Congressional Offices Are Handling COVID-19

While Louie Gohmert takes people on tours of the Capitol and spreads coronavirus far and wide-- note to people in Lufkin, Longview, Nacogdoches and Tyler: keep at least 6 feet away from this crazy version of Typhoid Mary-- other members of Congress have wisely decided to run their offices based on good practices suggested by the CDC. That notice above is on Ted Lieu's door. I believe Mark Takano is also taking the same precautions.

As you probably know, one of the staffers in Senator Maria Cantwell's office, has tested positive for coronavirus. Cantwell's DC office is closed. I asked several offices what they're doing about the pandemic. The best response, predictably, came from Ted Lieu's chief of staff, Marc Cevasco. "Congress," he said, "is obviously a large organization, with thousands of direct and indirect employees, but office policies and staffing are left up to each individual Member of Congress. House offices are relatively small. I manage an office of 10 people in Washington and an office of 8 in L.A. From the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, Congressman Lieu has taken the threat seriously and our office has instituted policies to mitigate risk as the situation has evolved."

First and foremost, we have reinforced public health best practices for our staff (this is important all the time, but especially important during a pandemic). Basic best practices include things like washing hands regularly, avoiding touching your face, covering mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, and disinfecting workspaces frequently. We also have a generous sick leave policy, which encourages people to stay home from work when they are not feeling well.

Social distancing is the buzzword of the hour-- it basically means you try to limit human contact as much as possible to prevent (or at least slow) the spread of the virus. Last week we limited in-person meetings for the Congressman and staff and had a "no contact" policy for the office (no handshakes etc). We also allowed for flexible arrival and departure times for staff so that we didn’t necessarily have to commute with everyone else on mass transit.

As the situation grew in severity this week, we have moved to 100% teleconference or video conference meetings for our Washington DC office and I have half of our staff working remotely from home. Interns are rotating so we only have one in the office at any one time.

During the upcoming district work period when the House is in recess (and Members are back home working from their districts) the entire Washington office will work remotely. In the district we will have two people manning the phones and everyone else will work remotely. We also will not have district staff attending large community events and meetings (for those few that haven’t already prudently been postponed) for the time being.

I am reminding my staff that this isn’t about them necessarily (most congressional staffers are in their 20s) it is about taking every precaution to prevent the spread of the virus to our older or sicker neighbors. Even delaying the spread of the virus can save lives as it prevents a spike in cases from overwhelming our medical system.

And then this was issued by the House Sergeant at Arms yesterday-- no more tours, Congressman Gohmert. And stop spreading disease, you asshole. Go quarantine yourself.

I asked some of the candidates for Congress how they've changed how they're interacting with staffers and voters and others. Yesterday Omaha progressive Kara Eastman told me that her campaign "has several workers who are paid hourly. I have told them today that if they are sick that they should not come in but they will still get paid for the time they would have worked. We are taking the novel Coronavirus seriously and want to make sure that people are safe and don't have to choose between their health and paying their bills." That's good practice that every campaign should adopt. Later Kara released a public statement that went further: "A comprehensive assessment of currently available data and public health warnings suggest we should avoid events and gatherings. We believe in putting the health and safety of our team, our supporters, and our community first. Therefore, until further notice, the Eastman Campaign will no longer schedule, attend, or engage in any public events."

Furthermore, we’ve taken the step of ensuring that our staff do not feel the need of choosing to work when sick by paying all hourly workers for their shifts if they need to stay home for themselves or a loved one. It is absolutely essential that we put the financial and health needs of our staff and community over other concerns.

We believe and support the excellent work done by local public health officials. It is a true testament to their work that the current number of cases of the novel Coronavirus in Nebraska is relatively limited.

We have decided therefore to continue our door-to-door canvassing. We should note that we have come close to making our first full pass in the district so we are in a position to pivot to phone calls only if need be and we will still be on track with our field goals. We prefer to be guided by science and data, and not fear. It is our policy, however, to wait until schools and other institutions close/convert to online services, to reconsider our canvassing method.

We join with other Democrats in pushing for free and accessible testing for this and all other pandemic conditions.

In conclusion, we will employ all available technological tools to continue to engage with NE-02 voters. Any voters who wish to converse with me should call me at (402) 200-3020.

This morning, Kara added that she's employing "a wide range of innovative technological tools to continue to reach voters and to be a part of the public health conversation." Her 6-point plan for the Corona Virus for NE-02:

• Free testing for all
• Stimulus package for temporary, part-time and full-time employees
• Move to all-mail primary voting
• No-cost loans to small businesses
• Paid sick leave for all workers
• Payment deferment of student loans and student loan interest

Also yesterday, Riverside County, CA progressive congressional candidate Liam O'Mara told us that "Both my campaign and my professional life have been affected. My campuses are closed so that students are not in close contact. Several party events have been cancelled, including the state's eBoard meeting, all the local Dem club meetings, and both a campaign fundraiser and a volunteer appreciation event. Unlike the incumbent, who called this a Democratic hoax in January and okayed the routing of people back from China through a local airport, we take the science seriously, and will follow all precautions from experts." He ws referring to Ken Calvert, who has put his own constituents in jeopardy with his shameful and, as always, fully partisan approach to the pandemic.

Eva Putzova is the progressive candidate running for the Arizona congressional seat occupied by "ex"-Republican Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran. Yesterday she updated her supporters on how her campaign is coping with the pandemic: "Because of the COVID-19 virus outbreak, we have paused all door-to-door canvassing and in-person events until the CDC advises otherwise. Up until now, our strength as a campaign has been in energizing people and engaging with voters one-on-one. We have a small army of volunteers across this vast district, but this will mean nothing if the coronavirus crisis lasts for a sustained period. We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure the health and safety of our volunteers and every person in our district. So instead of meeting people at their front doors, we are going to execute a broader digital strategy to get onto people’s computers screens and in their mailboxes."

Jennifer Christie, campaigning for an open seat in the suburbs north of Indianapolis told us that her campaign has "changed the way we canvass. We no longer shake hands at the door; instead we have a conversation and engage with voters with a Star Trek/Spock greeting, a 'Namaste,' or a wave. Voters have been receptive, and I think appreciate the conscientiousness."

Robin Wilt explained how her campaign is making the best of a bad situation-- and making it work for herself. "In NY-25, our Monroe County health officials have stressed the importance of 'flattening the curve' of the spread of the virus through social distancing. While the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in our campaign no longer participating in parades, rallies, or other events that bring more than 50 persons together, it has allowed us to reinforce our core strategy-- which is to meet individual voters where they are. We have pivoted to investing more effort in our ground game: knocking on doors and attending smaller community gatherings where we can intimately connect to voters. In essence, we have returned to our roots-- our grassroots, that is."

This morning the progressive running for the Colorado Senate seat, Andrew Romanoff, informed his supporters that he's changing the way he campaigns. "The coronavirus is forcing all of us to change our habits. Our campaign is no exception. Over the last 13 months, we’ve been crisscrossing the state, meeting tens of thousands of Coloradans in backyards and living rooms, coffee shops and brewpubs. That strategy yielded an enormous victory in last weekend’s precinct caucuses; we earned more votes than all the other Democratic candidates combined. But now we’re shifting course. In order to minimize health risks, we’ve decided to virtualize our operations. That means engaging supporters electronically, not in large events.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Submitted for your disapproval, a graphic, sourced from the Washington Post, and a congressional head count, that shows just how representative our so-called representative democracy is not. Not that any of this is at all shocking; the original idea of the Founding Fathers called for only landed white men and no women at all having voting rights, but that was a very different reality of over 200 long years ago, as much as some would like to go back to it. The thing is, though, that while we acknowledge the reality is now somewhat different, we still haven't caught up to today's reality. We're stuck in the 1930s somewhere. Perhaps with all of the women running for election on November 6th, at least one of these little pie charts will improve. Any changes in these charts are up to us, and up to those who choose to run. Then, of course, there is the issue of worthiness.

And, just because I am a very snarky guy, I'd like to mention that I wouldn't mind seeing a couple of additional little pies as listed below:

1. Let's see the percentage of sociopaths in congress vs. the obviously smaller percentage of sociopaths in the general populace.

2. How about one that shows the percentage of people in Congress who are the first person in their family to walk on two legs vs. the percentage in the general populace.

Also, I would like to see both IQ tests and a battery of psychological tests administered to anyone who wants to run for public office at any level from local school board on up. Yeah, we might end up with no school boards at all but how much of a difference would that make, especially in loon states like Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Indiana...? Don't we have a right to know? This would help weed out the Steve Kings, Paul Ryans, and Donald Trumps. Just imagine, for instance, all of the empty podiums we would have had at the 2016 Republican Primary debates. We could have gone from 17 down to 2 in no time. I'm just being nice when I say 2, of course.

Pie charts of IQ breakdowns would be great. Sure the intelligence of the general public is always in question in our Idiocracy, but any honest person has to see the evidence that the intelligence of the average member of Congress is pretty substandard compared to the rest of America, or is it? The IQ pie chart is one pie chart idea that might end up 50-50. I mean, someone voted for these wackos. It could be even worse, you know. Just look at the fact that anyone in the voting public with an IQ over 100 could see Trump is completely bonkers within 2 minutes of watching him speak on any topic. So, how about yet another pie chart- one that shows the percentage of voters with 100+ IQs who voted for Trump anyway, all because didn't care about intelligence at all and just wanted a psychopath in the White House! Call up another pie chart! Oh and still another one that shows inbreeding. That would be good to know, too. No more Louie Gohmerts!

A Nation in Crisis, Again

Statue of Abraham Lincoln in Portland, Oregon. Is there one more like him in our future?

by Gaius Publius

What an odd and frightening place we've found ourselves.

Before about a month ago, I'd have agreed with the person who wrote, "The Trump-Russian investigation was a rabbit hole with no rabbit at the bottom." To twist the metaphor, I'd put it this way: The Clinton part of the Democratic Party, in an effort to maintain Party control and advance a "she didn't lose" narrative, kept looking at "Russia did it" angles like Alice looking for a hole deep enough to jump into.

They looked at a lot of holes, but none that seemed to have real evidence in them. Recently, though, information started coming out about Mike Flynn, and potentially Jared Kushner, that made it look like Russia-hunting Democrats had actually found something of substance — actual documentable election collusion with actual Russia, as opposed to "maybe Russia gave emails to WikiLeaks" or "maybe Trump cheered them on a little too loudly," with a strong side of "it had to be Russia somehow, right? because Clinton won the popular vote."

The comparison that comes to mind is Bill Clinton and Whitewater, another investigation in search of a crime, any crime. The Whitewater inquiry, initially about a land deal, eventually turned up Paula Jones, then Monica Lewinsky, then Bill Clinton's perjury (finally, a crime!) — but still, the investigation ended miles from where it started.

Same with this. I now think there's a there there, but it's not the "there" that Russia hunters were chasing when they set out. I believe they've now found something of real substance — the cover-up certainly looks vigorous — but that substance is now miles from where they started looking. As with Whitewater, it seems the investigators got lucky, though I'm glad or our sakes they did.

The Effort to Remove Donald Trump

So where are we now? I'll lay decent odds the administration will appoint no special prosecutor, and if they do, no independent special prosecutor. It would take a revolt from congressional Republicans to prove me wrong. That could happen, but odds that it will? Less than 50-50 as I see it now.

Which means the country stays in its current state, ruled by a man and a party actively perverting the Constitution to enable obvious corruption and — finally, what the Democrats alleged all along on no evidence — apparent collusion by that man with a foreign power to gain domestic power. Whether that collusion was decisive or not in his victory, matters not at all.

(Interestingly, this is the same activity that Reagan and Bush I were accused of, the foreign power in that case being Iran. Neither political party, though, nor the media of that day would allow a complete investigation, and even went so far as to ostracize from mainstream employment a very good investigative reporter, Robert Parry, for pursuing it anyway.)

All of which means that if Trump's Russia doings aren't formally investigated, either by a special investigator or by Congress, elites who want him gone will have to force him out by extra-constitutional means.

Which suggests three questions. One, who wants him to go, since that will determine the shape of the opposition he faces? Two, who wants him to stay in office? And three, what are those means? Others may answer differently, but I'll offer these.

First, those in elites positions who want him to go include:

     • All Democratic officeholders.

     • Many Republican officeholders (those who would much prefer a President Pence).

     • Many of those who work in the bowels of the CIA, FBI, and NSA — highly placed rank-and-file operatives in position to leak information and do other substantial damage. (Note what happened during the election when those in the DC office of the FBI leaked damaging Clinton material because they disagreed with Comey's refusal to recommend an indictment. It's six months later, but the same dynamic.)

     • Others in the national security establishment who don't trust Trump to be warlike enough. This ropes in neocons both in and out of the military.

     • The broader neocon establishment/infrastructure, people who would have supported Clinton's wars and staffed her administration, all of whom hate Trump's statements (true ones in my view) about NATO's irrelevance. Saying goodbye to NATO starts the tearing down of American military-backed hegemony. NATO's sole relevance is to structure that hegemony in Europe.

Note that the list of Trump's elite enemies is likely to grow in number of individuals, if not in number of groups. Note also that the key group is the second, Republican officeholders. If they turn against him in large numbers, even if only in private, Trump won't remain in office. Also, if they support him sufficiently, even if only in private, it will be up to the last three groups, working together, to pressure Trump to leave.

Second, who are Trump's supporters? Who in real power wants him to stay in office? I believe it's a small list:

     • Many in his family.
     • Steve Bannon types (who are, note, anti-NATO).
     • The Rex Tillerson deals-with-Russia crowd.
     • The Scott Pruitt anti-regulation crowd.
     • Some Republican Tea Party officeholders.

As I said, a small list, and I think a shrinking one.

Finally, what are the "extra-constitutional means" of making him leave?

The Constitution provides impeachment by Congress — articles of impeachment voted in the House, a trial in the Senate — as the only structural redress to a "Charles I" problem. (The goal of congressional impeachment is to permit our version of Parliament to "kill the king" without actually killing anyone. Charles I must have been fresh in the founders' minds when they wrote that provision.) That's all the constitutional remedy there is.

If Trump doesn't get the "Nixon treatment," official investigation and trial by Congress, elites who want him to leave have to work outside the Constitution. Options include:

     • Relentless, damaging leaks and innuendo from all quarters aimed at turning public opinion against him.

     • Privately issued threats and rewards — sticks and carrots — to induce him to step down. Remember, intelligence agencies of various stripes likely have almost all the goods on almost all officials who matter to them. Imagine what's hoarded in NSA databases, or what FBI background checks reveal. Imagine what secrets angry CIA field agents might dig up.

If you doubt that issuing private threats like these could happen, do you imagine that agency use of damaging information to influence politics ended with Hoover? No Praetorian Guard, once it grows muscular, reverts back to a simple barracks unit just because new leadership arrives. When groups like that change culture, they rarely change back.

The threats are already coming out. Consider this post-firing report in the Washington Post: "Many [FBI] employees said they were furious about the [Comey] firing ... One intelligence official who works on Russian espionage matters said they were more determined than ever to pursue such cases. Another said Comey’s firing and the subsequent comments from the White House are attacks that won’t soon be forgotten. Trump had 'essentially declared war on a lot of people at the FBI, one official said. 'I think there will be a concerted effort to respond over time in kind.'"

"Attacks that won't soon be forgotten" and "a concerted effort to respond over time in kind." The covert State is at war with the overt State. (Be sure to ask yourself, if you like these comments, if you'd like them if someone else were president.)

     • Threats amounting to blackmail and, if not physical violence, violence to his wealth, business interests, and "brand." ("We will destroy your brand forever, you will never do business again, if you don't get out. Here's how we'll do it. First...")

I'll say at the outset that real physical violence against anyone involved in this is almost certainly off the table. For one thing, if something did happen physically to Trump, his family, or his close advisors — regardless of who did it — everyone in the country would assume Trump's enemies' guilt, and assume it with the same fervor and conviction they now assume his own.

The Next American Constitution

One last thought. This country has had a constitutional crisis every 70 years, after which the government restructured itself. In effect, we have been ruled by three Constitutions, not just one, each producing, in practice, very different governments and societies. We're rapidly producing a crisis that will produce a fourth.

In order, our constitutional crises are:

     • 1789, the Revolutionary War and transition from colony to slave-holding republic.

     • 1865, the Civil War and transition from divided slave-holding nation with two competing economies to united freed-slave state. This change took down the Southern agricultural aristocracy (by depriving it of the nearly free labor it depended on); made the Northern industrial economy nationally ascendant; and put us firmly on the path to first-world industrial powerhouse.

     • 1933, the Great Depression and transition from a light-handed pro-business government to a heavy-handed regulatory state.

     • And now, this.

What will the next American Constitution look like? Turkey's and Hungary's, with their dictators and single-party governments wrapped in the old constitutional forms? A naked kleptocracy, where constitutional forms are simply ignored, like those in many third-world countries? A state in which forms are observed but the hand with real power belongs mainly to the "security" apparatus? In many countries, coups by segments of the elite, blatant or covert, are welcomed as correctives and tacitly approved (another way constitutions are revised without being rewritten).

If Trump is not successfully impeached, and it looks for now like he won't be, our government as practiced will once more dramatically change, as it did when Bush's crimes were not addressed, and Obama's after him (never forget that targeted assassination is an innovation Obama made lawful).

But whatever happens next, whether Trump is impeached or not, I think we've already been changed as a nation forever by what's already led us to this moment. After all, in 2016 the nation wanted someone like Sanders to be president, wanted an agent of change, and look what it got. This is in fact our second failed attempt this century at change that makes our lives better.

I don't think that point's been lost on anyone. We're in transition no matter what happens to Trump. Transition to what, we'll have to find out later.

And something else to consider. The last three times the government fundamentally changed, we got lucky. We found leaders — Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt — up to the task, in chaotic and troubling times, of steering an altered ship to calmer water and a safer port.

Will we get lucky once more? We can only hope.

GP
 

Obama Administration Confirms Double-Digit ACA Premium Hikes

BREAKING: Obama administration says https://t.co/Elaw2I8wgo premiums will go up by double-digit percentages next year.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 24, 2016

by Gaius Publius

It's not looking good for the ACA, commonly called Obamacare. From the AP:

Obama administration confirms double-digit premium hikes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama's health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday. That's sure to stoke another "Obamacare" controversy days before a presidential election.

We can pause here briefly. First, premiums will go up. Second, markets (choices) will contract. A feature of neo-liberal rule is an increase in monopolies and inflated prices. And without doubt the ACA is right up the neo-liberal alley. Even the much-wanted Public Option was killed by the way Obama and his people manipulated the Senate version.

But onward (emphasis mine):

Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.

Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

"Consumers will be faced this year with not only big premium increases but also with a declining number of insurers participating, and that will lead to a tumultuous open enrollment period," said Larry Levitt, who tracks the health care law for the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

This all gives fodder to Republican opponents, of course, and the article points that out. The Yes-But from the administration looks like this:

The vast majority of the more than 10 million customers who purchase through HealthCare.gov and its state-run counterparts do receive generous financial assistance. "Enrollment is concentrated among very low-income individuals who receive significant government subsidies to reduce premiums and cost-sharing," said Caroline Pearson of the consulting firm Avalere Health[.]

But an estimated 5 million to 7 million people are either not eligible for the income-based assistance, or they buy individual policies outside of the health law's markets, where the subsidies are not available. The administration is urging the latter group to check out HealthCare.gov.

One problem is that, as the plan is designed, it becomes welfare via the subsidies at the same time that it stops being a right that everyone can afford. It's one thing to subside low-income households; it's another to make the the products of the plan unaffordable without subsidies to middle-income households. In a slightly more extreme version, it would be a gift to the poor and only that. Again, welfare.

The Clinton solution to this appears to be more of the same, at least as the AP puts it:

Clinton has proposed an array of fixes, including sweetening the law's subsidies and allowing more people to qualify for financial assistance.

Is the ACA poised to collapse? It's hard to say. On the one hand, even the insurance companies are withdrawing from what looked designed as a "health insurance industry protection scheme," complete with mandated purchases. Increasing unaffordability and lack of market choice — with the resultant effect of little competition — are likely making this patched-together program (relative to Medicare or any single-payer alternative) quite unpopular.

On the other hand, the relentless Republican attacks on any health insurance plan offered by Democrats is bound to stimulate that "rally 'round our Party" enthusiasm on the part of cultural Democratic Party voters, which might allow it to limp along for a while.

Will the ACA be fixed? Not with a Republican-controlled House and perhaps Senate, and not if Clinton restricts her proposals to increased subsidies. After all, the only real fix is to revert to the original LBJ-era plan — well-funded publicly-run health insurance for all citizens as a right (like the Sanders plan), or at the very least least, inclusion of a Public Option into ACA that simulates Medicare and is offered as a competing nonprofit alternative to private insurance products — or an insurer of last resort, if it comes to that.

As to the Public Opton, note this from last July:

Clinton Reaffirms Support For Public Option In Bid For Sanders Supporters

Sanders gushes, saying the health care proposals "will save lives.

Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her support on Saturday for creating a “public option” within Obamacare and allowing people to enroll in Medicare at age 55.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also called for a substantial increase in funding in medical clinics that serve low-income Americans, fully embracing a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While Clinton has long supported the creation of new government-run insurance options and reiterated that support several times this year, Saturday’s statement comes three days before she is scheduled to make her first joint campaign appearance with Sanders ― who has championed government-run insurance and federally financed clinics throughout his career and during his own bid for the presidency.

I read this as two proposals, one to offer a "public option" (described below) to everyone, and one to lower Medicare eligibility to age 55. About the public option:

The idea of the public option ― as first sketched out by Jacob Hacker, a Yale political scientist ― is to create a separate, government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers offering coverage through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges. The hope is that this competition can help keep premiums for all the insurance plans low, particularly if the government-run plan has the ability to dictate low reimbursement rates to doctors, hospitals, drugmakers, and other suppliers of medical care.

Definitely a step in the right direction. Will this actually be proposed? Perhaps, but it's a campaign promise, like Obama's promise to the unions to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which was introduced into an all-Democratic Congress in 2009 and then left to lie. If a public option proposal is introduced into this Congress, the odds of it passing are nil.

So to answer the original question — will the ACA be fixed? — I would say the chances are slim to none. Stay tuned; ACA may not be on thin ice now, but it could be getting close.

GP
 

Why Congress Might "Fix" the 9/11 Justice Bill It Just Passed

The Daily Show's nuanced take on the 9/11 Justice bill that Obama vetoed and Congress passed anyway, overriding his veto. Why might Congress reverse that veto-override? Give it a listen.

by Gaius Publius

"Why would [28 senators] vote to override the thing and then go back against it? Because it's not about what they feel. It's about what they want people to think they feel."

We wrote here about the 9//11 Justice Bill (officially, JASTA, or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) and Obama's veto of it, which Congress overrode. We also offered some reasons Obama and some Democrats may have been against it, among them the army of well-funded, Saudi-paid lobbyists operating in the U.S. to "discourage" its support. (Obama himself is a man with legacy needs, and down the road, his kind of legacy will also need financing.)

But a second reason for Obama's opposition is this — in essence, one person's "drone strike on an Afghan 'rebel' village" is another person's "state-sponsored terrorism." Put more simply, it's the tit-for-tat problem: "If you can sue me for terrorism, then I can sue you."

Or, put even more simply, revenge. And as Trevor Noah indicated in the video above, the U.S. has much to regret, or at least to protect against, when it comes to stimulating revenge.

Lawmakers' Regrets

So lawmakers are starting to walk back their two votes — one to pass the bill, one to override the veto — and starting to say words like "national security" and "protect the troops" ("troops" being code for anyone in any position who orders or helps implement what foreign victims may see as our own "state-sponsored terrorism"). 

Joseph K. Grieboski, writing in The Hill, discusses this. The headline:

9/11 bill is a global blunder that will weaken US efforts abroad

Before I continue with the article, notice the phrasing above, then ask yourself: "US efforts" to do what? More drone strikes perhaps? A bombing or two? Needless to say, you should be immediately alert that this piece is sympathetic to Obama's position.

The writer continues:

On Thursday [September 29], the U.S. Congress went over the head of President Obama for the first time, passing the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a piece of legislation effectively removing the principle of sovereign immunity to allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to directly and privately sue the Saudi government for complicity with terrorists.

While most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, it is critically important that the across-the-aisle 9/11 commission found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior officials funded the attacks, or had any prior knowledge of it. Instead, the commission report lays much of the blame on a failure of U.S. intelligence and border security, citing the fact that al Qaeda gave plenty of notice of their intent to slaughter American civilians, but domestic defense forces devoted little attention or resources toward addressing the threat.

With the passage of the bill, the United States has provided the opportunity for grieving citizens to launch a legal battle against a false enemy, justifiably angering a nation that is not only a huge supplier of oil for the U.S, but has also served as a key ally in the war on terror.

That middle paragraph is pure pro-Saudi argumentum. I left it in specifically you let you see it for what it is. If this bill gets "fixed" — i.e., neutered — that reasoning ("We can't sue the Saudis anyway; there's no proof") will be a constant part of the justification.

Now the next justification for walking back the bill, and the one I mentioned above (revenge):

Following the 15th anniversary of the attacks, JASTA was clearly directed at [sic] families of 9/11 victims. However, this bill has far-reaching consequences, opening the United States up to retaliatory legislation by foreign nations.

The principle of sovereign immunity, protecting a government from civil or criminal suit, has been maintained for so long by a notion of reciprocity — the United States protects itself from suit by in turn protecting other nations. The bill has taken a significant step towards erosion of this global status quo. If the U.S. will not protect the immunity of other nations, especially an ally such as Saudi Arabia, than there is no mechanism in place to prevent retaliatory measures.

"Directed at" 9/11 families exposes the posturing nature of support (as in, they're striking a pose) for this bill by legislators. The writer could have used the phrase "written to support" the 9/11 families, but I appreciate the his honesty in this case. Notice also that this "principle of sovereign immunity" isn't international law, but a kind of gentlemen's agreement, a "notion of reciprocity." There's nothing holding this international principle in place, nothing upgirding it, but fear of consequences. Good to know.

About those objections more specifically. First, the writer notes Obama, speaking in a town hall shortly after the veto override, saying this: "Obama cited a number of concerns with the overriding of his veto. His primary fear seems to be an infringement on the ability of the United States to continue to carry out global disaster relief. ... The president fears that, should other nations pass similar legislation, the U.S. could be forced to curb its humanitarian aid work out of legal necessity."

Of course we'll be sued for disaster relief. That's what everyone does to governments that help them pick themselves from the rubble of earthquake. Yes, that's sarcasm, and yes, that reasoning is the most phony of phony logic. Likely, though, you'll hear it much repeated when this bill is reconsidered.

Paul Ryan, whose Republican House overwhelmingly supported the bill (only 18 Republicans voted No), is having second thoughts as well:

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said the House would take up a bill to fix problems with JASTA after it comes back from its election recess, admitting Obama's concerns that the bill could subject U.S. service members to lawsuits in foreign courts was legitimate.

There's the "support the troops" argument. Another you'll hear much repeated.

And as Trevor Noah noted in the video above, Mitch McConnell is also have voter's remorse.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to blaming Obama for Senate Republicans' misunderstanding or misreading of the law. "Nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I think it was just a ball dropped," he stated.

When it comes to protecting the national security state, it seems almost no one wants to get in the way. That includes our major media.

Big Media Wants the Bill "Fixed" (Neutered) as Well

Major press outlets are also overwhelmingly for a "fix." From an overview of press coverage by Fair.org:

...Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts “terrorism” in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked “when convenient” by greedy non-Americans.

The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is “engaged in the world” with “drone operations.” A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with—so far—legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.

USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as “retaliation”—presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.

The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad—a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror–of which there are many–shouldn’t register in our moral calculus. They just don’t.

The many euphemisms used by the press simply say what I wrote more plainly above — "drone operations," for example, from the Times, means "drone strikes" and "drone kills," but without the hint of blood and death.

Yet Obama and Congress Would Let Foreign Companies Sue the U.S. Under NAFTA and TPP

Adam Johnson, the author of the Fair.org piece, notes the irony of U.S. political elites eagerness to (a) protect our government's right to kill with no exposure to lawsuit, while (b), via instruments like NAFTA and TPP, give foreign companies the right to sue the U.S. over any number of "lost profit" claims. He writes:

The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for  Investor-State Dispute Settlement—meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.

Let's put that even more succinctly. According to U.S. rulers and their agents: Prevent foreign victims from suing the U.S. for lost life, but allow foreign companies to sue the U.S. for lost money. Shows where their hearts are at, I think. It's clearly with the money, which keeps their system running, and not the victims of it.

Bottom line: After the election, most likely in the lame duck session, the 9/11 families will be sold out by Congress men and women who won't have to face another election for at least two years. Unless those families continue the fight, which I expect. It will be a long slog though. The nearness of this election, I suspect, was part of why the bill got to the floor this time.

Some battles, especially against holder of great wealthy and their enablers, seem never to end. I think, no matter who wins the presidency, that war will further ignite, but that's a thought for another day.

Aruba... Jamaica...

Let's end on a cheerier note. Did I hear Roy Wood Jr. mention "Aruba... Jamaica..." in the clip above? Here you go:

The Beach Boys, set to shots of Barbara Eden in Eden

No victim lawsuits in those smiles.

GP
 

Congress Overrides Obama Veto; 9/11 Families Can Sue Saudi Officials — and Associated U.S. Companies?

President Barack Obama and Saudi Arabia's King Salman walk together to a meeting at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Wednesday, April 20, 2016. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster (source)

by Gaius Publius

This story is straight-forward but has two interesting wrinkles. The House and Senate recently (and unanimously) passed a bill that drills a loophole into the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and allows victims of terrorism to sue foreign sponsors of attacks on U.S. soil.

The families of 9/11 victims had pushed hard for it. Most congressional Democrats and Republicans were united in supporting it. Only the executive branch, meaning President Obama, was opposed (more on that in a moment). So the bill passed ... and Obama vetoed it.

The Senate has now overridden his veto, 97–1 (only Harry Reid opposed; two not voting), quickly followed by the House override (348–77).

Here's the write-up via The Hill:

Senate overrides Obama 9/11 veto in overwhelming vote

The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

The 97-1 vote marks the first time the Senate has mustered enough support to overrule Obama’s veto pen.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the sole vote to sustain Obama’s veto. Not a single Democrat came to the Senate floor before the vote to argue in favor of Obama’s position. ...

The White House lashed out at the Senate vote, calling it "embarrassing."

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

 Here's what the legislation (acronym: JASTA) would do:

The legislation ... was crafted primarily at the urging of the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who want to sue Saudi Arabian officials if they are found to have links to the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Which means the Saudis, naturally, were opposed:

The Saudi Embassy and a high-priced team of lobbyists it hired waged an intense campaign to persuade lawmakers to sustain the override, but it came too late.

So there's money involved, and given the wealth of the Saudis, a lot of it. Still, not enough to "persuade" either house of Congress to support the president's veto.

The Saudi government's opposition is easy to understand — they don't want to be sued for ginning up anti-U.S. terrorism while selling us oil. But what about Obama's opposition?

Obama's Opposition

I'll give you two data points, in the form of administration quotes, that offer an explanation for Obama's veto. First, Obama says he doesn't want to put what's been characterized as "U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel [and] U.S. government assets" at risk. The Hill again:

Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism.

He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure. ...

“The consequences of JASTA [the bill] could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” [Obama] wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.

From the last sentence, you can see that the Saudis and Obama are working together on this. No surprise. A little more on what Obama says he fears, via USA Today:

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, would provide an exception to the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," which holds that one country can't be sued in another country's courts. ...

The White House has argued that the bill would prompt other nations to retaliate, stripping the immunity the United States enjoys in other parts of the world. "And no country has more to lose, in the context of those exceptions, than the United States of America..." Earnest said.

Stripping the U.S. of immunity may not be bad. After all, fear of punishment has deterred many destructive deeds, and internationally, we're no angels. But John Cornyn, a sponsor of the bill, argues that this mischaracterizes it, saying the bill "only targets foreign governments who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple."

If so, is President Obama protecting the U.S., or protecting the Saudis? And if just the latter, why? (I can think of several reasons — for example, America's determined dependence on oil, which ties us to that murderous regime; also, a certain future library and foundation that need funding, plus a regime that likes to contribute to foundations. Among others.)

Second, there's this intriguing bit from an earlier, pre-veto write-up by Reuters:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the president will veto Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act within the constitutionally mandated 10-day window, which ends Friday evening.

The Obama administration opposed the bill on grounds that other countries could use the law as an excuse to sue U.S. diplomats, service members or companies.

Notice that Josh Earnest was implicitly quoted in the second paragraph above. "Or companies"? Presumably U.S. companies, based on the construction of the sentence. So how could U.S. companies be sued if the "9/11 families" sued the Saudi government? And which ones?

Did U.S. Companies Help the 9/11 Hijackers?

In the hunt for that information, I found this, from Zero Hedge (emphasis in original):

Unleash the revisionist history. Congress released on Friday a long-classified report exploring the alleged ties of the Saudi Arabian government to the 9/11 hijackers.

The missing 28 pages from the 9/11 report begins as follows:

"While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government..."

The "28 pages," the secret document was part of a 2002 congressional investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks and has been classified since the report's completion. As CNN reports, former Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation and has been pushing the White House to release the pages, said Thursday he was "very pleased" that the documents would be released.

The pages, sent to Congress by the Obama administration, have been the subject of much speculation over what they might reveal about the Saudi government's involvement in the attacks masterminded by terrorist Osama bin Laden when he led al-Qaeda.The pages were used by the 9/11 Commission as part of its investigation into the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks.

A telephone number found in the phone book of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002, was for an Aspen, Colo., corporation that managed the "affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar," the documents show.

Fascinating. Almost ascends to the level of John LeCarré, but with even larger implications. This much very high level protection of the Saudi government and its ruling family (after all, it's Obama doing the protecting) must mean there's something big, something very high level, to protect.

The 9/11 story is certainly not dead. Thanks to the 9/11 families, we're getting a little bit closer to knowing what actually happened.

GP
 

The Coming TPP Vote & the Presidential Primary

Hillary Clinton in September 2015 on TPP. That text will soon be released, and Clinton will have a Keystone-like opportunity to improve her standing. Will she take it? (source)

by Gaius Publius

Earlier this year, the pro-corporate neoliberals in the Democratic Party — Obama, Biden, the TPP senators and House members — and their behind-the-scenes enablers — Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi — won the long and drawn out Fast Track vote. For the next three to six years, any bill labeled a "trade deal" will be "fast-tracked" through Congress. No amendments, no delay of the calendar, no filibuster. Just an up-or-down vote, with the hands of Congress hands well tied.

According to The Guardian (and others), the twelve nations involved in TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) negotiations have finally reached agreement. The deal is ready for Obama's intent-to-sign announcement and Congressional approval.

The Guardian reports, in a filled-with-corporate-spin article:

TPP deal: US and 11 other countries reach landmark Pacific trade pact

Trans-Pacific Partnership – the biggest trade deal in a generation – would affect 40% of world economy, but still requires ratification from US Congress and other world lawmakers

Trade ministers from 12 countries announced the largest trade-liberalizing [spin; it's actually trade-managing] pact in a generation on Monday. In a press conference in Atlanta, trade ministers from the US, Australia and Japan called the the Trans-Pacific Partnership an “ambitious” and “challenging” negotiation that will cut red tape [spin] globally and “set the rules for the 21st century for trade” [not spin; it will lock in monopolies for a generation].

The deal – in the works since 2008 – is a major victory for the US president, Barack Obama [not spin]. “This partnership levels the playing field for our farmers, ranchers and manufacturers [spin] by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on our products,” the president said in a statement. “It includes the strongest commitments [lies, if by "commitments" he means things that can be forced to happen] on labor and the environment of any trade agreement in history, and those commitments are enforceable, unlike in past agreements [distancing-from-NAFTA spin].”

While it still faces major hurdles, not least in Congress, the deal could reshape industries and influence everything from the price of cheese to the cost of cancer treatments [not spin; these will all go up]. It is expected to set common standards for 40% of the world’s economy, become a new flashpoint for the 2016 presidential campaign, and could become a legacy-defining agreement for the Obama administration [not spin, but the legacy won't be favorable].

The deal is seen as a challenge to China’s growing dominance in the Pacific region [spin; China will be a shadow participant via corporate subsidiaries in TPP countries like Vietnam]. China had been invited to join the trade group but balked at restrictions that the deal would have placed on its financial sector and other areas. ...

I glossed the text so I wouldn't have to write a kitchen-sink essay about it. Instead, I want to touch briefly on three aspects of this deal, three ways to look at what happens down the road. Keep in mind, this still has to pass Congress.

The Bipartisan Public Is Against It

The first thing to remember is — the public does not support it. Lori Wallach at Public Citizen (pdf):

Polling: As this memo shows, recent polling reveals broad U.S. public opposition to more-of-the-same trade deals among Independents, Republicans and Democrats. While Americans support trade, they do not support an expansion of status quo trade policies, complicating the push for the TPP. Furthermore, recent Pew polls in many of the TPP nations show that, outside Vietnam, the deal does not have strong support.

There's much more in this vein. Just look at the popularity of Donald Trump's statements against TPP among right-wing Republicans. No one but the wealthy and their defenders say nice things about NAFTA. By and large, people get that this is more of that, is worse than that. And when the text is actually released, people will finally get how much worse than NAFTA it is.

Three of Four Major Candidates Have Declared a TPP Position

Second, let's look at what this does to the presidential battle. Donald Trump has tweeted his disdain:

The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP is a terrible deal.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2015

Bernie Sanders has been solidly against TPP for a long time.

If we are serious about rebuilding the middle class and creating the millions of good paying jobs we desperately need, we must fundamentally rewrite our trade policies. NO to fast track, and NO to the TPP.

The whole piece from which the above was taken is an excellent bottom-line take-down of TPP.

Joe Biden, not a candidate, quite, is on board defending TPP:

For those wondering (@armandodkos), Biden aide tells me: "The Vice President supports the TPP agreement and will help pass it on the hill."

— Olivier Knox (@OKnox) October 5, 2015

Biden, I think, could kill any hope he has of being taken seriously as a Democratic candidate if he carries through and whips for TPP.

Hillary Clinton's position is unclear (example here). She has said she needs to read the text to evaluate it. At HillaryClinton.com, the only hit for the word "trade" comes on the National Security issues page:

Holding China accountable. As secretary of state, Hillary reasserted America’s role as a Pacific power and called out China’s aggressive actions in the region. As president, she’ll work with friends and allies to promote strong rules of the road and institutions in Asia, and encourage China to be a responsible stakeholder—including on cyberspace, human rights, trade, territorial disputes, and climate change—and hold it accountable if it does not.

The text will soon be released. I'd be surprised if an announcement wasn't forthcoming. It's certainly time for the last major candidatorial shoe to drop. According to this timeline (pdf), "The Fast Track statute requires public posting of a text 30 days after the 90-day notice of intent to sign."

One note about Clinton — If she comes out strong against TPP, and whips against it during the congressional debate, it will likely result in a big win for opponents of TPP and it will boost her credibility as an alternative to Sanders. If you're a Clinton supporter, I'd start lobbying for that today.

The parallel risk for Clinton is also present, and to an almost equal degree. If she seems in favor, it could confirm her opponents' worst fears about her pro-corporate leanings.

The Congressional Battle & After the Congressional Battle

Third, this doesn't end with passage, should that occur. Or at least, it doesn't have to. TPP is an "executive agreement" and not a treaty. About that (my emphasis; links at the source):

An executive agreement[1][2] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding. An executive agreement is one of three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international agreements. They are considered treaties by some authors as the term is used under international law in that they bind both the United States and a foreign sovereign state. However, they are not considered treaties as the term is used under United States Constitutional law, because the United States Constitution's treaty procedure requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and these agreements are made solely by the President of the United States.

There's a lot in play here. Can an "executive agreement" be abrogated by a later president? Does Congress need to vote on that abrogation? Have any of our previous treaties or "executive agreements" been ignored by past administrations?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I think we do need them. After all, if I were president and I hated TPP as much as I do, I'd unsign it on day one if I could. In fact, if I were a candidate running hard against TPP, one with a real chance to win, I'd consider announcing my opposition to enforcing TPP ahead of time if I discovered that were one of my options.

Just a thought. I get that there are a lot of questions to answer first. I also get that there's plenty of time to answer them.

Is a "What I Will Never Put You Through if I'm President" Speech Starting to Look Attractive?

And a fourth idea, or at least a dream. I wrote about this earlier (scroll to the end of this piece), but this brings it home again. A Sander-like candidate not only tallies accomplishments by doing; she or he also accomplishes by not-doing. This is a case, again, where a different, better president would not even have brought this up. And what a gift that would have been, not having been handed this battle one more time.

Remember the energy and time burned in trying (and failing) to stop Obama and the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party from passing Fast Track? It was exhausting. And here we are again. With that in mind, I would dearly love to listen to a presidential candidate say these words:

If you elect me president, here's what I will never do ...

▪ I will never negotiate a so-called "trade" deal that sends American jobs across our borders. No one will have to spend one minute asking me to stop a deal that hurts American workers. I will support only trade deals that increase American jobs, that create new workers in this country, that increase our balance of payments, and nothing less. ...

A dream perhaps, but a nice one.

GP

Coming up at the Supreme Court: "The Revenge of the Conservatives"?

They're ba-a-ack!

by Ken

Are you ready for it, constitutional-law fans? Yes, it's Ian Millhiser's fall preview. "Next Monday," ThinkProgress's legal maven noted in his post this morning ("Everything You Need To Know About The Big Supreme Court Cases The Justices Will Hear This Term"),

the Supreme Court will gavel in its newest term and the justices will take the bench for the first time since last June, when the conservative Roberts Court handed down a string of uncharacteristically liberal decisions. This term, however, liberals will need to swim upstream, with the justices poised to consider a number of issues — unions, voting rights, race, and abortion — where the members of the Court’s conservative bloc have not often show a penchant of heterodoxy.

The latter link is to a July post of Ian's called, ominously, "Coming Next: The Revenge Of The Supreme Court’s Conservatives," in which he ventured that "it is unlikely that liberals will feel the same way about the next Supreme Court term as they do about this recently completed one." He reminded us of his basic argument about last term, which left liberals "feeling pretty good": that "many of these outcomes most likely stem from conservative overreach -- litigants looking to disrupt progressive legislation brought long shot cases because they were encouraged by the Roberts Court’s record of conservatism and decided to 'press their luck.' "

Based on the cases the Court has already accepted for this term, and rumblings about other prospects, Ian doesn't see that happening again. In fact, trying to match the issues at hand with the Court's recent record, he's not optimistic at all.

For Ian's full thinking, check out the post. Here are the issues he's looking at:

• "Defunding Unions"

The issue is so-called "right to work" laws, under siege nationwide. But the case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, deals not with them as such but as the workaround unions have used: "fair share" or "agency" fees, by which all those who benefit from unions' collective bargaining can be made to pay a share for the costs of it, whether they're union members are not, preventing them from getting a totally free ride on the dues payers' backs.

many Court-watchers believed that the justices would declare right-to-work laws mandatory in public sector unions in 2014’s Harris v. Quinn. At oral argument in that case, however, Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concerns that the plaintiffs’ legal theory, which seeks to subject workplace bargaining to First Amendment scrutiny, could create serious problems for government managers. In the end, Harris wound up imposing a right-to-work regime on home health care workers, but it left the rest of the public sector workforce unscathed.

The biggest question in Friedrichs, in other words, is whether the Court’s relatively modest holding in Harris is a sign that at least one of the Court’s conservatives does not want to go as far as the Friedrichs plaintiffs wish to take them, or whether these justices simply decided that it would be best to make a radical shift in America’s labor and First Amendment law incrementally through several decisions. In any event, it appears that the best hope of many unionized workers is Justice Scalia. That’s never a happy position for a worker to find themselves in.

• "Free House Seats For White People"

The case is Evenwel v. Abbott, "which seeks to shift congressional representation away from communities with large numbers of immigrants." You'll recall that the allotment of congressional districts to the states is based, per the 14th Amendment, not on the number of eligible voters but on "the whole number of persons in each state." But that doesn't necessarily mean, this suit argues, that the congressional districts should be divvied up based on the same consideration.

So Texas, which has a significant number of largely Latino non-citizens, receives extra representation in the House for these non-citizens, even though they cannot vote.

When Texas drew its district lines, it complied with one person, one vote by drawing districts that had roughly equal population — even though this meant that some of those districts (typically, the ones with fewer non-citizens) have more voters than others. The plaintiffs in Evenwel want the Supreme Court to require states to draw districts with equal numbers of voters, instead of residents — so non-citizens will no longer count for purposes determining district populations. As a practical matter, this would shift representation away from Democratic-leaning communities with large numbers of Latinos to other communities that are more likely to support Republicans.

If the Evenwel plaintiffs prevail, in other words, Texas will continue to get extra seats in Congress for its large non-citizen population, but white Republicans will play a disproportionate role in selecting who occupies those seats.

Ian points out, though, that this case may not be quite so ominous. Unlike most cases that the High Court accepts based on a minimum of four votes in favor of acceptance, "this case came up through the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction, meaning that the Court had to at least give it cursory review. The fact that Evenwel will instead receive a full hearing, however, is not necessarily a sign that a significant faction within the Court is eager to use this case to shift power towards white voters."

• "Affirmative Action"

"One of the biggest surprises of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure," Ian writes, "is that the Court he leads has not struck down affirmative action on his watch." And the case is one that's well-known both to the justices and to Supreme Court groupies, Fisher v. University of Texas." When it first came before the Supremes, the general assumption was that the end was near for affirmative action.

Instead, the Court’s first Fisher opinion reemphasized [Justice Anthony] Kennedy’s concern [voiced in his 2003 dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court upheld limited affirmative action] that racial affirmative action programs are subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, and returned the case to the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reconsider Texas’s program.

A year later, the Texas admissions program dodged another bullet when it was upheld again by a divided Fifth Circuit panel.

Now, however, the Fisher case is before the justices again. The question this time around is whether one or more members of the Court’s conservative bloc flinched the first time because they have a lasting concern about striking down this particular program, or whether they simply expected the Fifth Circuit to do so for them. If the later is true, expect them to take matters into their own hands.

Since Grutter was decided, Ian notes, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the decision, has been replaced by the knee-jerk far-right-wing Sammy "The Hammer" Alito. Couple that with "Slow Anthony" Kennedy"s on-the-record problems with affirmative action, and it looks like this could be it.

• "The End of Roe?"

Looming over the entire term are at least two major reproductive health cases that the justices are very likely to agree to hear, even though they have not yet done so. The first case asks whether states can enact sweeping restrictions on abortion so long as they dress them up as sham health laws that appear, on the surface, to do something to protect women’s health. The second is a follow up to Hobby Lobby which asks whether religious objectors can refuse to comply with rules promoting birth control access that literally requires them to do nothing more than fill out a form asking for an exemption from the law.

Both of these cases are discussed at greater length, in addition to another major reproductive rights case that the Court could potentially agree to hear, at this link.

Again, you'll have a better idea of what you'll find at the link of you know the title of the post Ian is directing us to here: "How The Supreme Court Could Destroy Reproductive Rights In One Term."

Getting the picture? It could be a rough ride, this Supreme Court term.

#

Sunday Classics snapshots: In D.C., still no Lincoln -- or even a Boccanegra

Leonard Warren as Simon Boccanegra

I weep for you, for the peaceful
sun on your hillsides,
where the olive branches
bloom in vain.
I weep for the deceptive
gaiety of your flowers,
and I cry to you "Peace!"
I cry to you "Love!"

Leonard Warren (b), Simon Boccanegra; Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, Fritz Stiedry, cond. Live performance, Jan. 28, 1950

Lawrence Tibbett (b), Simon Boccanegra; Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, Ettore Panizza, cond. Live performance, Jan. 21, 1939

by Ken

The great political chronicler Richard Reeves titled his book about the start of the post-Nixon (i.e., post-Watergate) presidency of Jerry Ford: A Ford, not a Lincoln. I think of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt. And while other American presidents have certainly risen to moments of great challenge, it's not something our political system can be counted on to make happen, and if anything even less so with the rabble that makes up our Congresses.

So perhaps it's not surprising that under the combined influence of the fratricidal follies rending the House of Representatives and a not-all-that-attentive watching of the whole of the upgraded-for-HD Ken Burns Lincoln film, and in addition with the notable contrast of the summonses to a very different sort of action delivered by Pope Francis on his American visit, my mind wandered to the rising-to-the-moment of Verdi's Simon Boccanegra, the plebeian Doge of Genoa faced with the riot that breaks out in his own Council Chamber between the blood-rival factions of Plebeians and Patricians, following the attempted abduction of the patrician daughter Amelia (in reality Boccanegra's long-lost daughter Maria, as he himself has only recently discovered, in the Recognition Scene of Act I, Scene 1, which we spent a fair amount of time on here once upon a time) on behalf of the Doge's henchman Paolo, which was foiled by Amelia's patrician fiancé, Gabriele Adorno, who killed the would-be abductor.


ABOVE WE'VE HEARD THE DOGE'S GREAT PLEA --

Read more »

What could these poor saps be thinking? (A contest with no prize)

That's it -- no crying, fellas. Big boys don't cry.

by Ken

This morning, in honor of the return of Congress from summer vacation, washingtonpost.com used this photo to kick off "The Daily 202" newsletter ("Congress comes back to shutdown talk, Iran debate and Boehner threats"), with the caption "John Boehner and Mitch McConnell during the February showdown over funding the Department of Homeland Security."

Somehow I just couldn't stop looking at the picture. Talk about a woebegone duo, our intrepid legislative solons, who are responsible for making the wheels of Congress, er, every now and then budge ever so sliightly. And the more I looked at these titans of democracy, the more I wondered, what on earth could be going on in their heads? If anything.

Here's what I came up with. Feel free to join in.

MISS MITCH: If one more person asks me about a goddamn government shutdown, I'm think I'll just spit.
SUNNY JOHN: I forget, if there's a government shutdown, do we have to come to work?

SUNNY JOHN: Ohmygod, it's like somebody's pounding my head with a sledgehammer.
MISS MITCH: Does my hair look okay?

MISS MITCH: Crap, I just swallowed my gum.
SUNNY JOHN: I knew I should have had just one more little drinky.

SUNNY JOHN: That's the last time I ask that goddamn Paul Ryan to help me pick out a tie.
MISS MITCH: Wait, where am I again?

SUNNY JOHN: Boy, this place was way more fun back in the days when I gave out lobbyist cash to the guys on the floor. Whee!
MISS MITCH: Wait, who am I again?

MISS MITCH: I'll just hold my breath and think about bombing Iran.
SUNNY JOHN: I'll just hold my breath and think about getting bombed.

SUNNY JOHN: "Get yourself a nice Civil Service job," my pa used to say. Well, at least I didn't wind up in the post office.
MISS MITCH: I figured if Harry Reid could do this job, a monkey could.

MISS MITCH: I say we send that fucking Cruz back to Canada before Trump builds his border wall.
SUNNY JOHN: Fucking teabagger morons would probably put their shoes on before they go in a tanning booth.

MISS MITCH: Maybe I should run for president. Everybody else is.
SUNNY JOHN: They never talk about the bags under Nancy Pelosi's eyes. Just what she's wearing and how her hair is done.

MISS MITCH: Or maybe vice president. That's a job a monkey could do -- with his eyes closed. Look at Biden.
SUNNY JOHN: I don't know who I hate worse, the teabaggers or these media guys who think they're so smart.

SUNNY JOHN: I thought this would be such a great job.
MISS MITCH: Is there any way I could phone in a bomb scare?

MISS MITCH: Goddamn Obama!
SUNNY JOHN: Goddamn Obama!

VOICEOVER: Won't you give what you can spare to send these boys to summer camp?

Say good night, boys.

#

The "Augean Stables" — How Corruption Has Amended the Constitution

Hercules starting to clean a 1,000-cattle stable that hadn't been emptied in 30 years. Like the U.S. government, says Gary Hart. (Hercules quickly gives up on the shovel.)

by Gaius Publius

Not something you don't already know if you're a regular reader of these pages, but it's becoming more and more mainstream to deliver a radical* analysis of government in the U.S. That's why I found the following so interesting — the source is former U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. And believe me, this is a radical analysis.

But first, two definitions. The Augean Stables is a reference to the Fifth Labor of Hercules, one of the Twelve (click to read the context). The task was to clean the king's stables, which housed 1,000 cattle and which hadn't been cleaned in 30 years, the life of the man who owned it. Cleaned of what? Surely you know:

The fifth Labour of Heracles (Hercules in Latin) was to clean the Augean (/ɔːˈdʒiːən/) stables. Eurystheus [the king assigning the tasks to Hercules] intended this assignment both as humiliating (rather than impressive, like the previous labours) and as impossible, since the livestock were divinely healthy (immortal) and therefore produced an enormous quantity of dung (ἡ ὄνθος). These stables had not been cleaned in over 30 years, and over 1,000 cattle lived there. However, Heracles succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to wash out the filth.

The second definition — corruption. Most think of corruption as an outcome that's perverted for the sake of money. Hart, correctly, says, Not so:

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

Corruption is "self-interest placed above the interest of all," or in some cases, one's legal or contractual obligation. Thus, for example, some college football referees and refereeing groups are obviously corrupt. When Conference A plays Conference B using Conference B's referees, and year after year the bad calls go Conference B's way, especially with the game on the line, the referees are corrupt.

Are they betraying their obligation for money? No, likely not. Are they betraying their obligation in order to satisfy animus against Conference A, or to make sure the "home teams" win? That's an obvious explanation, and by this definition (and mine), that's corrupt.

Or take another situation. By this definition, the Supreme Court since at least 2000 and likely before has acted corruptly, if the definition is "self-interest placed above the interest of all." No legal analysis of Bush v. Gore passes the "upholds the interest of all" test — the Republicans on the Court simply put a Republican (the home team candidate) in the White House because they could. Nor do the major decisions around money and corporate rights, like Citizens United or even Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Burger Court decision that lifted restrictions on campaign contributions, and its follow-up, First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, whose majority opinion was authored by Lewis Powell, of the infamous Powell memo.

By this definition — perverting an outcome to benefit a group in which one has a personal interest — the Supreme Court acted corruptly in the cases above. Likely corrupt in Buckley, Citizens United, and First National Bank of Boston. Certainly corrupt in Bush v. Gore, where Republican justices favored a Republican candidate for president over a Democratic one on no defensible grounds. They weren't metaphorically "corrupt," with the quotes. They were corrupt by definition.

Gary Hart on the Systemic Corruption of the U.S. Government

Hart's piece is an interesting Time magazine essay, and also a long section from his new book, The Republic of Conscience (I don't support Amazon, so no Amazon link). I don't want to quote a ton of it, since its main argument is likely familiar to you. But he makes a systemic point in a way that seems original; that is, he puts pieces together to make a bigger whole than most of us were aware of. For example, it's likely that the "army of lobbyists" we all hate aren't a perversion of government — they are government.

A few notable sections (all emphasis mine):

Gary Hart: America’s Founding Principles Are in Danger of Corruption

Welcome to the age of vanity politics and campaigns-for-hire. What would our founders make of this nightmare?

Four qualities have distinguished republican government from ancient Athens forward: the sovereignty of the people; a sense of the common good; government dedicated to the commonwealth; and resistance to corruption. Measured against the standards established for republics from ancient times, the American Republic is massively corrupt.

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

By that standard, can anyone seriously doubt that our republic, our government, is corrupt? There have been Teapot Domes and financial scandals of one kind or another throughout our nation’s history. There has never been a time, however, when the government of the United States was so perversely and systematically dedicated to special interests, earmarks, side deals, log-rolling, vote-trading, and sweetheart deals of one kind or another.

What brought us to this? A sinister system combining staggering campaign costs, political contributions, political action committees, special interest payments for access, and, most of all, the rise of the lobbying class.

Worst of all, the army of lobbyists that started relatively small in the mid-twentieth century has now grown to big battalions of law firms and lobbying firms of the right, left, and an amalgam of both. And that gargantuan, if not reptilian, industry now takes on board former members of the House and the Senate and their personal and committee staffs. And they are all getting fabulously rich.

Gargantuan numbers of lobbyists with gargantuan amounts of money. There's a point where corruption of government on that scale systemically changes government itself.

The "Big Three" Lobbying Conglomerates Are a "Fourth Branch of Government"

For Hart, the movement of office-holders and their staffs between lobbying firms and government is not a "revolving door" to government; that revolving door is government. Hart makes his point by looking at the lobbying firm WPP, the largest of three giant lobbying conglomerates. WPP isn't just a lobbying firm, it's an international conglomerate of firms that wields enormous power and wealth.

Consider — WPP has been eating up lobbying firms the way Macy's, Inc. eats department stores or Darden eats restaurant chains. At some point, you simply own the business you're in, and the size of your operation changes the nature of the game itself.

Hart on how lobbying at this scale changes our government:

[T]he largest [lobbying "predator" (his term)] by far is WPP (originally called Wire and Plastic Products; is there a metaphor here?), which has its headquarters in London and more than 150,000 employees in 2,500 offices spread around 107 countries. It, together with one or two conglomerating competitors, represents a fourth branch of government, vacuuming up former senators and House members and their spouses and families, key committee staff, former senior administration officials of both parties and several administrations, and ambassadors, diplomats, and retired senior military officers.

WPP has swallowed giant public relations, advertising, and lobbying outfits such as Hill & Knowlton and BursonMarsteller, along with dozens of smaller members of the highly lucrative special interest and influence-manipulation world. Close behind WPP is the Orwellian-named Omnicom Group and another converger vaguely called the Interpublic Group of Companies. According to Mr. Edsall, WPP had billings last year of $72.3 billion, larger than the budgets of quite a number of countries.

With a budget so astronomical, think how much good WPP can do in the campaign finance arena, especially since the Citizens United decision. The possibilities are almost limitless. Why pay for a senator or congresswoman here or there when you can buy an entire committee? Think of the banks that can be bailed out, the range of elaborate weapons systems that can be sold to the government, the protection from congressional scrutiny that can be paid for, the economic policies that can be manipulated.

The lobbying business is no longer about votes up or down on particular measures that may emerge in Congress or policies made in the White House. It is about setting agendas, deciding what should and should not be brought up for hearings and legislation. We have gone way beyond mere vote buying now. The converging Influence World represents nothing less than an unofficial but enormously powerful fourth branch of government.

To whom is this branch of government accountable? Who sets the agenda for its rising army of influence marketers? How easy will it be to not only go from office to a lucrative lobbying job but, more important, from lucrative lobbying job to holding office?

When one lobbying firm has billings of nearly $75 billion, you can "buy committees," not just individual votes; and you can "set agendas" rather than just pass laws.

Now consider that "revolving door" again. Is that a door out of government and back into it, or is it a door into another branch of government, one where policy decisions also get made?

Does an International Lobbying Firm Serve One Nation's Interest or Many?

And a final question: If the lobbying firm is international, with international clients and governmental "targets," are its interests "American" in any way? If not, how compromised are those who take its money?

Where are its [WPP's] loyalties if it is manipulating and influencing governments around the world? Other than as a trough of money of gigantic proportions, how does it view the government of the United States?

Why would not WPP act to modify the laws of one country to serve the interests of clients in another? And I'll ask again, are those who take its money compromised by the international goals of these mega-firms?

"Purchasing" Candidates and Office-Holders — Even Former Senators Are Saying It

Just as "corruption" is not a metaphor when it comes to decisions like Bush v. Gore, "buying" and "sponsoring" candidates and office-holders — the way soap is bought and race cars are sponsored — is not a metaphor, at least according to Hart:

The advent of legalized corruption launched by the Supreme Court empowers the superrich to fund their own presidential and congressional campaigns as pet projects, to foster pet policies, and to represent pet political enclaves. You have a billion, or even several hundred million, then purchase a candidate from the endless reserve bench of minor politicians and make him or her a star, a mouthpiece for any cause or purpose however questionable, and that candidate will mouth your script in endless political debates and through as many television spots as you are willing to pay for. All legal now. ...

The five prevailing Supreme Court justices, holding that a legal entity called a corporation has First Amendment rights of free speech, might at least have required the bought-and-paid-for candidates to wear sponsor labels on their suits as stock-car drivers do. Though, for the time being, sponsored candidates will not be openly promoted by Exxon-Mobil or the Stardust Resort and Casino but by phony “committees for good government” smokescreens.

I think he's literally correct. In the old days, it didn't take much money to wholly own a back-bench Congress person from coal country, say, and one coal company, if big enough, could do it. But the major office-holders had to be funded by competing interests. Now you can tag several  presidential candidates, at least on the Republican side, with the single name of their "benefactor."

For example:

• Marco Rubio — Sponsored by Norman Braman & (he hopes) Sheldon Adelson
• Scott Walker — Sponsored by the Koch Brothers
• Ted Cruz — Sponsored by hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer
• Rick Santorum — Sponsored by Foster Friess
• Rand Paul — Sponsored by [this slot available]

And so on. Joe Biden's been called the "Senator from MBNA," and Chuck Schumer the "Senator from Wall Street." Seems right. In cases of such complete "sponsorship" I agree that wearing of badges should be required. Partial sponsorship could be handled like NASCAR jackets:

But this treats a serious problem too lightly. Remember, I said this was a radical analysis. In fact, by this practice we're actually amending the Constitution — not the one as written; the one as practiced.

The Other Way to Amend the Constitution

All constitutions and all systems of laws are amended in two ways, by formal agreement (legal process) and by informal agreement. In England, the second ways is in fact the primary way their "constitution" is amended.

In the U.S., if both parties enforce a law in the same way, even though that way deviates from the way the law is written, the law is amended until forced back to its original form in practice. Thus:

▪ We have, by bipartisan agreement, revoked the Fourth Amendment. Neither party enforces it, so it's gone. Do you think you'll see it enforced in your lifetime? It's possible. Is that likely, do you think, without another radical change?

▪ We have changed the "rule of law" to add a "circle of immunity" amendment. It started with Nixon — the circle of "who cannot be prosecuted" included one person, the president. That was granted him by Gerald Ford's pardon with no objection from Congress and confirmed by Obama's refusal to indict Bush II for violating laws against torture. (Can you see Obama being indicted by anyone for extrajudicial murder, assassination really, of Americans, some mere propagandists and some completely innocent?)

Under Reagan–Bush I that circle expanded to include their top cabinet officers, like Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Under Bush II–Obama it includes all money-center bankers and former senators (and outright crooks) like Jon Corzine.

▪ Regarding that parenthetical comment about Obama and his drone kills above, we've now amended the trial-by-jury section of the Sixth Amendment to allow executive assassination, death by executive fiat. It just awaits a Republican president to confirm it by following suit, but Congress has already approved.

And so on. Now we can add one more:

▪ The mega-lobbying firms, with their combined more-than-$100 billion annual budget, are a fourth branch of government. Policy is set in these firms and passed to Congress and the executive branch to "discuss." Once discussed and passed, those who passed these policies then return to the firms to set more policy — and receive what's often the biggest payoff of their lifetime.

Was TPP drafted first in these mega-firms before being negotiated between nations? There aren't many other ways to convene 600 lobbyists (pdf).

Cleaning the Augean Stables

Back to Hart's essay and where we started, with the Augean Stables. The way out of this mess, if Greek myth is any indicator, is not incremental. You can't shovel your way out. Remember, that's a 1,000-cattle stable, and in our case a literal army of lobbyists. With a mere shovel, we'd be buried to our necks before the fourth toss of filth out the window.

How did Hercules clean his stable? He diverted a river and ran the whole mess out to sea in one pass. There's a word for that equivalent in government life — radical change, and it comes in several forms.

I recommend the peaceful kind, like backing this guy for president. Click to support; you can adjust the split at the link.

* Did you know that "radical" means "going to the root or source"?

Radically yours,

GP