774 lines
98 KiB
HTML
774 lines
98 KiB
HTML
|
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|||
|
|
<html lang="" xml:lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
|
|||
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8"/>
|
|||
|
|
<meta content="pandoc" name="generator"/>
|
|||
|
|
<meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0, user-scalable=yes" name="viewport"/>
|
|||
|
|
<title>30 May, 2021</title>
|
|||
|
|
<style type="text/css">
|
|||
|
|
code{white-space: pre-wrap;}
|
|||
|
|
span.smallcaps{font-variant: small-caps;}
|
|||
|
|
span.underline{text-decoration: underline;}
|
|||
|
|
div.column{display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; width: 50%;}
|
|||
|
|
</style>
|
|||
|
|
<title>Daily-Dose</title><meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" name="viewport"/><link href="styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><link href="../styles/simple.css" rel="stylesheet"/><style>*{overflow-x:hidden;}</style><link href="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.css" rel="stylesheet"/><script src="https://unpkg.com/aos@2.3.1/dist/aos.js"></script></head>
|
|||
|
|
<body>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-down" id="daily-dose">Daily-Dose</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" data-aos-anchor-placement="top-bottom" id="contents">Contents</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-vox">From Vox</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><a href="#from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</a></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-new-yorker">From New Yorker</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory</strong> - Scientists and political commentators are no longer dismissing the possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese laboratory. What changed? - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/the-sudden-rise-of-the-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>American Democracy Isn’t Dead Yet, but It’s Getting There</strong> - A country that cannot even agree to investigate an assault on its Capitol is in big trouble, indeed. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/american-democracy-isnt-dead-yet-but-its-getting-there">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>California’s Novel Attempt at Land Reparations</strong> - Property seized from a Black family a century ago is being returned to their descendants. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/us-journal/californias-novel-attempt-at-land-reparations">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>La lucha por mejorar las tasas de vacunación entre los latinos en Nueva York</strong> - Enormes disparidades persisten en los niveles de inmunización entre las comunidades de la ciudad. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/la-lucha-por-mejorar-las-tasas-de-vacunacion-entre-los-latinos-en-nueva-york">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The Republican Party, Racial Hypocrisy, and the 1619 Project</strong> - As the G.O.P. seeks to deny Americans knowledge of their own history, Nikole Hannah-Jones is denied tenure. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-republican-party-racial-hypocrisy-and-the-1619-project">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-vox">From Vox</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>A bipartisan January 6 commission is probably dead. Democrats have a backup plan.</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="A man in a blue Trump/Pence hat and red MAGA bandana stands amid red smoke, emitting from a smoke grenade, in front of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. A mob of supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump breached the building on Jan. 6, 2021. " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yxgF-mf1ovkUBGzkxuP5vYfu_P0=/384x0:3940x2667/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69361719/1230459621.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
A smoke grenade goes off in front of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. during a Jan. 6 demonstration by supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump. | Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
A House committee could be less vulnerable to GOP obstruction.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CJnTu1">
|
|||
|
|
After hopes for a bipartisan January 6 commission <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot">went down in flames</a> on Friday, Democrats may have a new plan to investigate the attack on the Capitol: A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/house-democrats-select-committee-january-6-attack/index.html">select House committee</a>, which would not require Republican support to establish.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dU4gV7">
|
|||
|
|
Such a committee would differ from the <a href="https://homeland.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-thompson-announces-bipartisan-agreement-with-ranking-member-katko-to-create-commission-to-investigate-the-january-6-attack-on-the-capitol">proposed bipartisan commission</a> in several key ways, but it could still take steps to ensure accountability for those involved in the insurrection. Notably, a select committee would be composed of members of Congress rather than outside experts, and the subpoena power would function differently — but, crucially, it could also be <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/76625/the-next-best-option-if-a-january-6-commission-fails/">created</a> with only a simple majority vote in the House.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GYNehK">
|
|||
|
|
At the same time, a select committee could cast an inescapable partisan shadow over the investigation — and the failure of the independent commission bill underscores the alarming depths of Republican fealty to <a href="https://www.vox.com/22420764/liz-cheney-trump-republicans-democracy-2024">the Big Lie</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QEA0jG">
|
|||
|
|
Several Democratic members of the House have publicly voiced their support for the backup plan, which follows the defeat on Friday of the bipartisan commission bill in a 54-35 vote. The bill would have needed 60 votes to bypass the controversial <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/">Senate filibuster</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-right">
|
|||
|
|
<div id="RDQCsj">
|
|||
|
|
<div>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lbi0dV">
|
|||
|
|
For her part, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) hasn’t publicly declared her next move. But in a <a href="https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/52821">statement</a> released after Senate Republicans successfully filibustered the bipartisan commission bill on Friday, Pelosi pledged that “Democrats will proceed to find the truth.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vSd4pn">
|
|||
|
|
“Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans’ denial of the truth of the January 6th insurrection brings shame to the Senate,” she said. “Republicans’ cowardice in rejecting the truth of that dark day makes our Capitol and our country less safe.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="Speaker Pelosi Holds Weekly Media Briefing On Capitol Hill" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Dc9odMmmjBzVB4cbBeBvrqUwCqU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22548089/1319093023.jpg"/> <cite>Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following a May 20 press conference at the US Capitol.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bxKzWT">
|
|||
|
|
Other Democrats have been more vocal in support of a select committee: Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), who served as an <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/09/965914210/meet-the-house-managers-laying-out-the-case-to-impeach-donald-trump">impeachment manager</a> in former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial earlier this year, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/house-democrats-select-committee-january-6-attack/index.html">told</a> CNN’s Manu Raju Friday that, with the failure of the commission bill, “Congress should create a select committee to fully investigate the causes and consequences of the insurrection on January 6.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cFMs5a">
|
|||
|
|
And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1398329940752310274?s=20">tweeted</a> his support of a select committee Friday: “Mitch McConnell thinks he can stop the full truth from coming out. He cannot,” Lieu wrote. “The House can empower a bipartisan select congressional committee to investigate the insurrection.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div id="xFVTT6">
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
|||
|
|
Mitch McConnell thinks he can stop the full truth from coming out. He cannot. The House can empower a bipartisan select congressional committee to investigate the insurrection. The select committee would also have stronger subpoena power because GOP Members can’t block subpoenas. <a href="https://t.co/QRv4FJBOnT">https://t.co/QRv4FJBOnT</a>
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
— Ted Lieu (<span class="citation" data-cites="tedlieu">@tedlieu</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1398329940752310274?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2021</a>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote></div></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cLLiPh">
|
|||
|
|
Previously, a bill to establish an independent January 6 commission <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-bipartisan-commission-probe-jan-6-capitol-attack-n1267896">passed the House</a> by a bipartisan margin, with every Democrat and 35 Republicans voting for the measure.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Dk51O5">
|
|||
|
|
That bill was the product of bipartisan negotiations between House Homeland Security Committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and ranking member Rep. John Katko (R-NY), but was opposed by House GOP leadership.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NnZDak">
|
|||
|
|
Gladys Sicknick, the mother of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died the day after the Capitol attack, also made an <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/capitol-police-sicknick-jan-6-490943">emotional plea</a> for lawmakers to support the bill, along with her son’s partner, Sandra Garza.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="orfr9x">
|
|||
|
|
“Not having a January 6 Commission to look into exactly what occurred is a slap in the faces of all the officers who did their jobs that day,” Gladys Sicknick <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/capitol-police-sicknick-jan-6-490943">told</a> Politico in a statement this week. “I suggest that all Congressmen and Senators who are against this Bill visit my son’s grave in Arlington National Cemetery and, while there, think about what their hurtful decisions will do to those officers who will be there for them going forward.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xybO5M">
|
|||
|
|
But though <a href="https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1398312395202871297?s=20">six Republican senators</a> joined every Democrat present to support the bill on Friday, it didn’t clear the 60-vote threshold needed to override the filibuster.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hDXjWr">
|
|||
|
|
Eleven senators, including two Democrats, did not cast a vote — which essentially amounted to a “no” vote, given the filibuster rules. All told, the measure actually garnered less GOP support than did the February effort to convict former President Trump of inciting insurrection (he was ultimately <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/2/13/22280838/senate-acquits-donald-trump-impeachment-vote">acquitted</a>).
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="January 6th Commission Visit" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ECHkexLNVRmDlE9RjEuJQKUKiaY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22548085/1233139236.jpg"/> <cite>Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Gladys Sicknick, Sandra Garza, and DC Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fanone, who was injured on January 6, arrive to a May 27 meeting in support of a commission to investigate the Capitol attack.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="QSjDdW">
|
|||
|
|
A select committee could ensure less GOP obstruction during the investigation
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="DzoXTC">
|
|||
|
|
Technically, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/3/20/22341271/feinstein-filibuster-reform-talking-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-joe-biden-senate-60-votes">filibuster reform</a> — an oft-discussed option that President Joe Biden has <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/3/16/22335133/joe-biden-talking-filibuster-reform-senate-joe-manchin-george-stephanopoulos">flirted with</a> — would allow Democrats, who hold the slimmest possible majority in the Senate, to advance this bill and other contentious priorities. But at least one Democratic senator — West Virginia’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/22339531/manchin-filibuster-bipartisanship-senate-west-virginia">Joe Manchin</a>, the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22260164/filibuster-senate-fix-reform-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-cloture-mitch-mcconnell">usual suspect</a> — has already <a href="https://www.axios.com/manchin-filibuster-jan-6-commission-senate-3b46fd81-2d30-4446-992d-ce7d8a2c989c.html">said</a> that eliminating the filibuster to pass the January 6 commission bill is off-limits, so Friday’s failed vote is almost certainly the end of the line for the bipartisan commission plan.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6v2TKz">
|
|||
|
|
In the absence of procedural changes, then, it’s most likely select committee time in the House — and there are some key differences between the two plans, including several which could work in Democrats’ favor.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7t1NVY">
|
|||
|
|
First and foremost, the makeup of a potential select committee would differ substantially from the original commission proposal. Under the <a href="https://homeland.house.gov/news/press-releases/chairman-thompson-announces-bipartisan-agreement-with-ranking-member-katko-to-create-commission-to-investigate-the-january-6-attack-on-the-capitol">commission plan</a> produced by Thompson and Katko earlier this month, which resembled the bipartisan commission created following the 9/11 attacks, commissioners would have been required to have “significant expertise in the areas of law enforcement, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, intelligence, and cybersecurity” — and no sitting members of Congress would have been allowed to serve on the commission.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nMTSV3">
|
|||
|
|
Additionally, Democratic and Republican leadership would have been allowed to choose an equal number of commissioners — five apiece, 10 total — with the commission chair appointed by Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the vice chair appointed by Republican leadership.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bIHVaK">
|
|||
|
|
When it comes to a select committee, none of that is true. As a House committee, the group’s entire roster would by definition be composed of House members, and there’s <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/19/other-options-jan-6-commission-ornstein/">no requirement</a> for an equal number of members from each party; its partisan balance could be determined by Democratic leadership in the establishing resolution.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SYHI91">
|
|||
|
|
Significantly, that also means there could be fewer prospects for GOP obstruction in a select committee. In contrast to the defeated plan for an independent investigative commission, where use of the subpoena power would have required either majority support or agreement between the chair and vice chair — in other words, bipartisan agreement — Democrats on a select committee would be perfectly able to wield <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/19/other-options-jan-6-commission-ornstein/">unilateral subpoena power</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gR8Get">
|
|||
|
|
That’s a big deal because, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/25/22445422/january-6-commission-senate-filibuster">wrote</a> earlier this week, it’s more than likely that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would have staffed their side of a potential commission with commissioners “prone to obstruct and object.” With a select committee, though, Democrats can look forward to the prospect of unobstructed action.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SAQO4k">
|
|||
|
|
Indeed, some Republicans voted for the bipartisan commission on Friday with the logic that blocking an independent commission would ultimately be worse for the GOP.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tOYKvx">
|
|||
|
|
“Without this commission, there will still be an investigation,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said in a <a href="https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cassidy-releases-statement-on-january-6th-commission-vote">statement</a> Friday explaining his vote in favor of the commission. “But it will be a House select-committee set up by Speaker Pelosi — the nature of which will be entirely dictated by Democrats and would stretch on for years.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="k99lWy">
|
|||
|
|
“We can be more confident that the independent commission would thoroughly investigate this issue [of the lack of adequate security at the Capitol],” he added.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="Capitol insurrection January 6, 2021" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ATuSzcsiqC5vhzI5rhznjxapwRs=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22548094/1231451609.jpg"/> <cite>Amanda Voisard/The Washington Post/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Capitol Police defend both sides of a US Capitol door on January 6, 2021 as rioters fight to gain access to the Capitol.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="9vQoen">
|
|||
|
|
A House committee may face criticism for being partisan
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IHGcSM">
|
|||
|
|
There are also drawbacks to a select committee, however — some very real, and some still hypothetical.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="cpefeh">
|
|||
|
|
In the “real” column, there’s plenty of reason for Democrats to be worried about McCarthy’s potential choices for Republican membership on a select committee. Though GOP members won’t have as much power to obstruct as they might in an evenly-split independent commission, they could still do their best to turn the committee into a circus — and/or spend their time ranting about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/24/gops-shifting-arguments-against-jan-6-commission/">antifa</a> and unrelated protest movements.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ul4CNK">
|
|||
|
|
And with GOP House members like Reps. <a href="https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1392637353232158722?s=20">Andrew Clyde</a> (R-GA), <a href="https://twitter.com/scottwongDC/status/1393255920419934213?s=20">Louie Gohmert</a> (R-TX), and <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1392524853698306057?s=20">Paul Gosar</a> (R-AZ), to name <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/16/22438835/gop-whitewash-capitol-attack-january-6-commission-mccarthy">just a few</a>, already engaged in full-blown insurrection apologia, it’s hard to see how the GOP conference would participate in a select committee in good faith.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div id="gb6BRZ">
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
|||
|
|
Rep. Paul Gosar offers unequivocal defense of the January 6 insurrectionists, describing them as “peaceful patriots” who are being “harassed” by the DOJ <a href="https://t.co/b4Ijgvfz3V">pic.twitter.com/b4Ijgvfz3V</a>
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
— Aaron Rupar (<span class="citation" data-cites="atrupar">@atrupar</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1392524853698306057?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2021</a>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bFtvzQ">
|
|||
|
|
Another concern when it comes to a select committee versus an independent commission is the potential appearance of partisan intent, which could make the findings of a select committee easier to discredit.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="SfF2ZP">
|
|||
|
|
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/28/politics/house-democrats-select-committee-january-6-attack/index.html">CNN’s Manu Raju writes</a>, “Senate Republicans who opposed the commission said that if Pelosi goes that [select committee] route, it would be easier to contend that such a probe would be geared at helping Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hG49yS">
|
|||
|
|
That’s possible, of course — and it’s certainly what Republicans will claim at the top of their lungs. But it’s less clear how much of a difference it will really make.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uNiFJO">
|
|||
|
|
For one, there’s a good chance Republicans would have taken the same line on the independent investigative commission. Though that plan was the product of bipartisan negotiation and had bipartisan, bicameral support, GOP opponents were already attacking it as partisan before blocking it for good on Friday.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="f4WwUo">
|
|||
|
|
“[The January 6 commission] isn’t designed to produce a serious inquiry,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1395809838869983237?s=20">tweeted</a> last week. “It’s designed to be used as [a] partisan political weapon.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RQUIDq">
|
|||
|
|
Additionally, as Washington Post political reporter Dave Weigel <a href="https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1397939767451455489?s=20">pointed out</a> on Twitter Thursday, the findings of an independent investigative committee may well not carry any more weight with voters than those of a select committee.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BpLieP">
|
|||
|
|
“The idea that a commission or investigation must be bipartisan or voters won’t take it seriously exists in DC and vanishes once you step outside of it,” he tweeted.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div id="R1X6wa">
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
|||
|
|
The idea that a commission or investigation must be bipartisan or voters won’t take it seriously exists in DC and vanishes once you step outside of it.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
— Dave Weigel (<span class="citation" data-cites="daveweigel">@daveweigel</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1397939767451455489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2021</a>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="4vgzqM">
|
|||
|
|
Republicans really don’t want to investigate the January 6 attack
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="2vv8xs">
|
|||
|
|
Beyond the specific pros and cons of a select committee versus an independent commission, the Friday defeat of the commission bill proves more than ever why it’s important to proceed with an investigation of the January 6 attack.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="TdqTaL">
|
|||
|
|
Specifically, the GOP’s grab bag of excuses for opposing the commission — that it was <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1395809838869983237?s=20">too partisan</a>, or <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/24/gops-shifting-arguments-against-jan-6-commission/">too narrow in scope</a>, or simply <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1397926102350188556?s=20">redundant</a>, to name just a few — all ring rather hollow. They obscure the real reason for Republican opposition to an investigation: the need to continue promoting the Big Lie — the utterly false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="Pro-Trump “Stop The Steal” Rally Held At Oregon State Capitol" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GslCw5KxXeEaOW04VwbAWH6leeA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22548101/1229518306.jpg"/> <cite>Nathan Howard/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
An Oregon protester at a “Stop the Steal” rally on November 7, 2020, where Trump supporters protested against President Joe Biden’s election win.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NIgL5R">
|
|||
|
|
As Vox’s Zack Beauchamp <a href="https://www.vox.com/22420764/liz-cheney-trump-republicans-democracy-2024">wrote</a> earlier this month, the Big Lie is increasingly the GOP’s one and only animating idea. To revisit the horror of the January 6 attack, not to mention its precipitating causes, would fly in the face of party doctrine — and potentially implicate Trump’s allies in Congress for supporting and spreading inflammatory misinformation.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="x1pW5v">
|
|||
|
|
As Beauchamp <a href="https://www.vox.com/22420764/liz-cheney-trump-republicans-democracy-2024">points out</a>,
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="837P4x">
|
|||
|
|
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/11/politics/voting-restrictions-analysis/index.html">Polling has consistently found</a> Republican voters take Trump’s view of the election. An April poll from <a href="https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/oakvelbwlpr/Topline%20Reuters%20Ipsos%20Trump%20Coattails%20Poll%20-%20April%2005%202021.pdf">Reuters/Ipsos</a> is a representative example: It found that 60 percent of Republicans agreed that “the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump,” with 55 percent saying the result came from “illegal voting or election rigging.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="uFPsZ4">
|
|||
|
|
From top to bottom, the GOP has been conquered by the Big Lie. Much as North Korean state press proclaims that <a href="http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2148894/other-time-singapore-gave-north-korea-taste-america">Kim Jong Il invented the hamburger</a>, Republicans must now proclaim there was something fishy about Joe Biden’s victory.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="A1e4DH">
|
|||
|
|
The result of that conquest has been a full-fledged effort by the GOP conference to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/16/22438835/gop-whitewash-capitol-attack-january-6-commission-mccarthy">whitewash</a> the Capitol attack, which left <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html">five people dead</a> and at least <a href="https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/51421">140 police officers wounded</a>. Increasingly, Republicans have pushed the envelope further and further in <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/22/22448803/capitol-police-security-january-6-bill">denying</a> what happened on January 6, with party members like Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, comparing the insurrection to “a normal tourist visit.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="U2dZZP">
|
|||
|
|
“Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos and pictures,” Clyde <a href="https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1392637353232158722?s=20">said</a> earlier this month in a committee hearing. “You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div id="6PZCBp">
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
|||
|
|
i want to reiterate how crazy it is for Andrew Clyde to say this. bonkers. one of the craziest things i’ve heard uttered in a dozen years covering Congress. <a href="https://t.co/8Xlzwx2uXl">https://t.co/8Xlzwx2uXl</a>
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
— Jake Sherman (<span class="citation" data-cites="JakeSherman">@JakeSherman</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1392637353232158722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 13, 2021</a>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="2HVWkl">
|
|||
|
|
The GOP stands to benefit from obfuscating the causes — and consequences — of January 6
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9WvjIF">
|
|||
|
|
As Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman points out, Clyde’s claim is “bonkers.” But Clyde is by no means <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/554834-gop-efforts-to-downplay-danger-of-capitol-riot-increase?rl=1">alone</a>, and even those Republicans who haven’t gone quite so far over the cliff have made a cynical calculation that getting to the bottom of the January 6 attack is less important than winning back power in the 2022 midterms.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="VRs0WW">
|
|||
|
|
“I want our midterm message to be on the kinds of things that the American people are dealing with: That’s jobs and wages and the economy and national security, safe streets and strong borders — not relitigating the 2020 elections,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/politics/republican-reaction-january-6-probe/index.html">told</a> CNN earlier this month. “A lot of our members, and I think this is true of a lot of House Republicans, want to be moving forward and not looking backward.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ewEfDD">
|
|||
|
|
Thune’s argument, however, misses the point: An independent commission — or a select committee, now that Thune and his colleagues have defeated the commission plan — wouldn’t be dedicated to relitigating the election (though Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere seem bent on doing so <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-false-claims-fallout/2021/05/19/87aeacc4-b7f9-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html">endlessly</a>).
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="V4nZAZ">
|
|||
|
|
Rather, moving forward without dealing more thoroughly with the events of January 6 would give free rein to the not-insignificant portion of the GOP that is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/16/22438835/gop-whitewash-capitol-attack-january-6-commission-mccarthy">now pretending</a> the insurrection wasn’t all that bad, and to the even larger cohort of Republicans dedicated to perpetuating the Big Lie that fueled the attack.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tjtBc2">
|
|||
|
|
“To be making a decision for the short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us on January 6, I think we need to look at that critically,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), one of the six Republican senators who ultimately voted for the commission, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/january-6-commission-murkowski-mcconnell_n_60b046e4e4b0c5658f91cff4">said</a> on Thursday. “Is that really what this is about, one election cycle after another?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Justice Breyer’s new warning for Democrats couldn’t have come at a worse time</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QJjMUZNh_u-oGlqtpEh3XsrWxcE=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69360555/GettyImages_145308181_copy.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in 2012. | Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
American democracy is in crisis. Breyer thinks now’s the time to scold his fellow liberals.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3efxBz">
|
|||
|
|
Justice Stephen Breyer — a Bill Clinton appointee who has served on the Supreme Court since 1994 — has chosen this moment to admonish liberals for failing to respect the rule of law.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qStej5">
|
|||
|
|
He’s done so despite the fact that less than five months ago, a violent mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters <a href="https://www.vox.com/22218446/capitol-police-mob-trump-storming-washington-dc">invaded the US Capitol</a> in a vain attempt to keep Trump, who had just lost his bid for reelection, in office without an electoral mandate. In the months that followed, state-level Republicans loyal to Trump passed legislation that appears to <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22368044/georgia-sb202-voter-suppression-democracy-big-lie">serve no purpose other than to restrict voting</a>. And now, Republican leaders are <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/25/22445422/january-6-commission-senate-filibuster">blocking a bipartisan investigation</a> into the January 6 riots at the Capitol.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Fm0LkX">
|
|||
|
|
And yet, in the midst of what might be the greatest threat to liberal democracy in the United States since Jim Crow, Breyer warns that liberals are endangering the rule of law because a small minority of Democrats have suggested taking aggressive action to rein in the Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="sPq2Fu">
|
|||
|
|
And Breyer is doing this at the same time that he’s urging Democrats to find common ground with a party that refuses to investigate an attack that endangered much of Congress.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div id="AMLNKL">
|
|||
|
|
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" dir="ltr" lang="en">
|
|||
|
|
“If you need Republican support, talk to them. ‘My friend, what do you think?’ Get them talking and they’ll eventually say something you agree with.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
— Steven Mazie (<span class="citation" data-cites="stevenmazie">@stevenmazie</span>) <a href="https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1398326276700749830?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 28, 2021</a>
|
|||
|
|
</blockquote></div></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GXW8N5">
|
|||
|
|
In a book to be published this fall, Breyer warns the US will pay a heavy price if it does not show deference to the judiciary — and that even though the Supreme Court is now more conservative than at any point in the last three generations, it is a mistake to think any of his colleagues are rank partisans.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="hxcWFl">
|
|||
|
|
“A judge’s loyalty is to the rule of law,” Breyer writes, “not the political party that helped to secure his or her appointment.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="4zBrVQ">
|
|||
|
|
He also does not hide his motivation for writing the book, titled <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674269361"><em>The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics</em></a><em>:</em> “Proposals have been recently made to increase the number of Supreme Court justices,” Breyer notes. “I aim to make those whose reflexive instincts may favor significant structural (or similar institutional) changes, such as forms of court-packing, think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-right">
|
|||
|
|
<div id="XZBznQ">
|
|||
|
|
<div>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="ZqacFV">
|
|||
|
|
What Breyer’s book can tell us about his retirement plans
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="rOOi5c">
|
|||
|
|
With respect to the idea of putting additional justices on the Court, Breyer realistically has little to fear from Democrats.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="LtHVeN">
|
|||
|
|
Though a handful of Democratic lawmakers did introduce legislation that would <a href="https://www.vox.com/22384461/supreme-court-court-expansion-packing-judiciary-act-13-seats-jones-nadler-markey-johnson">add four seats to the Supreme Court</a> and give Democratic appointees a 7-6 majority, the bill landed with a thud in Congress. In April, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she had “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/democrats-supreme-court-expansion-bill-reaction/index.html">no plans</a>” to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. And, while President Joe Biden formed a commission to study Supreme Court reforms, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/4/10/22375792/supreme-court-biden-commission-reform-court-packing-federalist-society">no outspoken proponents of reform</a> were appointed to it.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tqqt18">
|
|||
|
|
Democrats are all too familiar with the archetype of a self-identified liberal or Democrat who seems more frightened of the hypothetical possibility of progressive overreach than they are of Republicans, who are taking very real steps to foreclose democracy. Think of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), whose <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/3/17/22336181/joe-manchin-filibuster-reform-41-votes-talking-jeff-merkley-senate-rules">loyalty to the filibuster</a> is likely to kill any chance of passing a voting rights bill before the 2022 midterm elections, which could hand control of Congress to Republicans.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OwkGsb">
|
|||
|
|
But Breyer’s decision to join the ranks of liberal scolds could prove even more consequential than Manchin and Sinema’s allegiance to the filibuster due to one fact: Breyer is 82 years old.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-left">
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/LHPoU016sYrGqO4J2LFPfmpB6ts=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22544661/GettyImages_916247078_copy.jpg"/> <cite>Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts arrive for President Trump’s State of the Union address in 2018.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="k8uqUF">
|
|||
|
|
Because the Senate is <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22215728/senate-anti-democratic-one-number-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff-georgia-runoffs">malapportioned in ways that benefit Republicans</a>, the Senate’s current Democratic majority may be Breyer’s last opportunity to retire under a president who will nominate a like-minded justice — and under a Senate that might actually confirm that justice.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zzqOca">
|
|||
|
|
But his book <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/us/justice-breyer-retirement.html">can be read as an indictment of such timed retirements</a>, which are an unavoidably political act — the entire purpose of Breyer’s retirement would be to ensure his seat is filled by a Democrat. And Breyer’s new book is a manifesto against the idea that courts should be perceived as political. “If the public comes to see judges as merely ‘politicians in robes,’” he writes, “its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only decline.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9VEfLG">
|
|||
|
|
I do not want to minimize the concerns Breyer raises in his book. The justice is correct about many things. Courts play an important role in maintaining the rule of law, and a widespread perception that the courts are political risks triggering a public backlash that destroys the judiciary’s ability to function.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Tml42x">
|
|||
|
|
But Breyer needs to grapple with the possibility that Democrats increasingly perceive the Court as a partisan institution because it has become a partisan institution. As he ponders retirement, he needs to consider whether a Court that <a href="https://www.vox.com/21211880/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-voting-rights-act-election-2020">already works hard to limit voting rights</a> would be perceived as less political should Republicans gain a 7-2 majority.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="IWY2p7">
|
|||
|
|
The problem Breyer describes in his book is one at the heart of liberalism. As George Mason University political science professor Jennifer Victor told me on Twitter, “<a href="https://twitter.com/jennifernvictor/status/1397163077049651203">Democracy comes from institutions</a>. The problem is, more and more people have come to realize that flawed institutions in the US are preventing it from achieving democracy.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="i3HtnX">
|
|||
|
|
Democracy can die if our institutions collapse, but it can also die if they are captured by illiberal or anti-democratic forces. And Breyer is so focused on the former problem that he appears blind to the latter.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="cQ7A9v">
|
|||
|
|
A lesson from Jim Crow
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="iCYKCc">
|
|||
|
|
In 1993, law professor (and future Supreme Court justice) Elena Kagan published a <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11573&context=journal_articles">tribute to her former boss</a>, who died earlier that year.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="XTVo5I">
|
|||
|
|
The former boss was Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first Black person to serve on the Supreme Court and the greatest lawyer of the 20th century. Marshall is best known for his Supreme Court advocacy — he won a unanimous decision in <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=87"><em>Brown v. Board of Education</em></a><em> </em>(1954),<em> </em>which<em> </em>declared public school segregation unconstitutional — but he was also an accomplished trial lawyer. Marshall spent years <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/democrats-will-botch-the-resistance-against-trump-1f8c211c7b68/">defending innocent Black men in Southern courts</a>, often risking being lynched in order to do so.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NhriuO">
|
|||
|
|
In Kagan’s tribute, the future justice recounted <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1452024975636401316"><em>Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co.</em></a> (1988), whose opinion Marshall wrote, where the legendary civil rights lawyer ruled against a man who said he was a victim of race discrimination.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Mh87U3">
|
|||
|
|
<em>Torres</em> involved Jose Torres, one of 16 Hispanic plaintiffs in a case alleging employment discrimination. Because of a clerical error by his lawyer’s secretary, Torres’s name was inadvertently left off of a crucial court filing. The question was whether the mistake doomed Torres’s ability to pursue his case, under a procedural rule providing that the court filing ”shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Wte2df">
|
|||
|
|
Although Marshall’s opinion recognized the rule demanded a “harsh result” in Torres’s case, he nonetheless ruled against him.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="LeRatB">
|
|||
|
|
Kagan, who was Marshall’s law clerk when <em>Torres</em> was decided, recounts that she “pleaded with Justice Marshall to vote” in Torres’s favor, but Marshall refused.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Ew8BtL">
|
|||
|
|
“The Justice referred in our conversation to his own years of trying civil rights claims,” Kagan wrote in her tribute to her late boss. “All you could hope for, he remarked, was that a court didn’t rule against you for illegitimate reasons; you couldn’t hope, and you had no right to expect, that a court would bend the rules in your favor.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GFsZMH">
|
|||
|
|
Marshall’s lesson to his young clerk was that “<a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11573&context=journal_articles">it was the very existence of rules</a>—along with the judiciary’s felt obligation to adhere to them—that best protected unpopular parties.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1D3U_3XaFQ4JZmoIoU4cKDL0JNA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22544685/GettyImages_515098722_copy.jpg"/> <cite>Bettmann Archive/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Thurgood Marshall (top right) was the first Black person to serve on the Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="zTXm5n">
|
|||
|
|
More broadly, Marshall understood the same idea Victor conveyed on Twitter: Liberal democracy depends on institutions. And it depends on those institutions behaving in predictable ways laid out in predetermined rules. As Breyer writes in his new book, “Under the law, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; and the same is true of the public’s willingness to accept judicial decisions with which it disagrees. The rule of law is not a meal that can be ordered à la carte.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="n4UL5x">
|
|||
|
|
But Marshall’s lesson to Kagan also revealed a weakness at the heart of liberal democracy. Imagine, for example, a white supremacist whose goal is to maintain segregation and whites-only rule in the Jim Crow South. One way to achieve this is to subvert the rule of law in its entirety — tear down institutions that might allow Black people to achieve political power.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="mYTmYL">
|
|||
|
|
The other way to maintain a white supremacist state is to work within the system: Write a constitution that prohibits Black people from voting. Elect racist judges who will interpret the law to maintain white rule. Craft procedural rules that, while perhaps neutral on their face, are designed to deny legal relief to disfavored groups. Appoint Supreme Court justices who will <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4053797526279899410">strike down federal civil rights laws</a> intended to frustrate white supremacy.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xOyjLB">
|
|||
|
|
Liberals, in other words, must <a href="https://archive.thinkprogress.org/democrats-will-botch-the-resistance-against-trump-1f8c211c7b68/">constantly fight a two-front war</a>. They have to prop up institutions that can be captured and used against liberal democracy while also working within the system to control those institutions. Opponents of liberal democracy, meanwhile, can prevail either by capturing those institutions or by tearing them down. In the state of nature, the strong man always wins.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="TBdSsC">
|
|||
|
|
Breyer appears to be betting that the danger of diminished public confidence in one specific institution — the judiciary — outweighs the danger of letting that institution be captured by Trumpy Republicans. I think <a href="https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/51/lets-think-about-court-packing-2/">he’s wrong about that</a>. But he’s absolutely right to warn liberals against being too quick to weaken institutions that liberalism depends upon.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="MzhsOZ">
|
|||
|
|
Why does Breyer fear a weaker Supreme Court?
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OboyUa">
|
|||
|
|
Breyer’s book appears motivated by his opposition to left-leaning calls for Supreme Court reform, but it also lays out a much broader theory of the courts’ role in a liberal democracy — and of how courts gain the public credibility they need to perform that role.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="reNyF6">
|
|||
|
|
The justice recounts a long history that includes some early low points, such as President Andrew Jackson’s <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6938475705816460383">refusal to obey an 1832 decision</a> protecting the rights of Cherokees (Jackson eventually sent federal troops to force the Cherokee people to relocate to Oklahoma, along what is now known as the Trail of Tears).
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="JwpXaD">
|
|||
|
|
As our nation matured, in Breyer’s account, the public developed more respect for the Court, and presidents grew more inclined to honor its decisions. President Harry Truman’s decision to follow a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/579">wartime opinion</a> preventing him from seizing control of privately owned steel mills is a high point in Breyer’s narrative.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nBmitb">
|
|||
|
|
Much of Breyer’s portrait of history is debatable. He paints the eventual failure of the Jim Crow South’s massive resistance to <em>Brown v. Board of Education </em>as a triumph for the Court. But the decision in <em>Brown</em> accomplished very little in the deep South until Congress took aim at segregation with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the eve of that law’s passage a decade after <em>Brown</em>, only <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/brown-v-board-education-didnt-end-segregation-big-government-did/">one in 85 Southern Black children</a> attended a desegregated school.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="rmMzd7">
|
|||
|
|
Breyer also offers some unexpected praise for <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html"><em>Bush v. Gore</em></a><em> </em>(2000), or at least for the aftermath of that decision. Using <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/8/6/21355564/trump-nevada-vote-by-mail-ab4-cegavske-sisolak-supreme-court">highly dubious legal reasoning</a>, <em>Bush</em> effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush. Breyer was one of four dissenters in the case.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="mgMcpZ">
|
|||
|
|
Yet, as Breyer notes, “Despite the huge stakes involved, despite the belief of half the country that the Court was misguided, Americans accepted the majority’s holding without violent protest.” Former Vice President Al Gore, who many still believe rightfully won the 2000 election, told his supporters not to “trash the Supreme Court.” At the time of <em>Bush</em>, Breyer writes, “acceptance of the Court’s decisions, respect for those decisions even when one considers them wrong, had become virtually habitual.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3nj4BU">
|
|||
|
|
In Breyer’s mind, this respect for judicial decisions — even in wrongly decided cases — appears to be an unalloyed good. Over time, he writes, “The American people … gradually adopted the custom and habit of respecting the rule of law, even when the ‘law’ included judicial decisions with which they strongly disagreed,” and the Supreme Court “gradually expanded its authority to protect an individual’s basic constitutional rights, even during a time of war.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8pE3QN">
|
|||
|
|
To Breyer, an occasional bad decision, even a hugely consequential one like that in <em>Bush,</em> is a small price to pay for maintaining an institution that can prevent elected officials from trampling our constitutional rights.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jnijs8">
|
|||
|
|
But what happens if the Court becomes hostile to these very same rights? What happens, for example, if decisions such as <em>Bush</em> become routine, and the Court frequently intervenes in elections to install candidates who belong to the same political party as a majority of the justices? What happens if the Supreme Court dismantles what remains of the Voting Rights Act (it’s already <a href="https://www.vox.com/22286213/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-arizona-brnovich-democratic-national-committee-republican-party">destroyed most of it</a>), thereby opening the door to Jim Crow voter suppression in the process? What happens if the Court forbids state supreme courts or Democratic governors from blocking Republican-drawn gerrymanders, something four justices have <a href="https://www.vox.com/21540145/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-disputed-election-wisconsin-pennsylvania-north-carolina">already signaled they may be willing to do</a>?
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="EIhLZF">
|
|||
|
|
The most troubling provision of Georgia’s new voting law permits the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to effectively seize control of local election boards, which have the power to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/8/22422768/supreme-court-voting-rights-florida-georgia-ron-desantis-john-roberts-suppression-crawford-shelby">disqualify voters and close polling places</a>. What happens if Georgia Republicans shut down half the precincts in the Democratic stronghold of Atlanta, and the Supreme Court does nothing as tens of thousands of Democratic voters give up in frustration rather than wait in hours-long lines to cast a ballot?
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-right c-float-hang">
|
|||
|
|
<aside id="LnqAuo">
|
|||
|
|
<q>“A judge’s loyalty is to the rule of law, not the political party that helped to secure his or her appointment” —Justice Breyer</q>
|
|||
|
|
</aside>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Q3V2fw">
|
|||
|
|
I asked Breyer a version of these questions at a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHxTQxDVTdU">lecture he delivered at Harvard Law School</a> in April (Breyer’s book is derived from this lecture, and Harvard allowed members of the public to submit questions to the justice).
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Kx3sKy">
|
|||
|
|
“Should we accept the proposition that public acceptance of judicial decisions is a <em>per se</em> good?” I asked Breyer. I provided a few examples of cases where it might be appropriate to resist the decision, such as if the Supreme Court “so dismantles our voting rights that we cease to have a meaningful ability to elect a government that is not led by the same political party [as] controls the Supreme Court.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7B26aZ">
|
|||
|
|
Breyer’s response to my question was twofold. The first was a warning about what can happen should the public turn away from accepting judicial decisions. “Go turn on the television set,” he warned, “and go look at what happens in countries that try to do without” a rule of law grounded in deference to judicial rulings.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NMKXtu">
|
|||
|
|
Then he seemed to admit there may be circumstances where such deference should be abandoned, though only if those circumstances were truly extraordinary. “What about Hitler?” Breyer asked rhetorically, before denying that anyone currently on the Court reaches that bar — “We don’t have Hitler.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="XqR6Sr">
|
|||
|
|
No serious person would claim that, say, Brett Kavanaugh or Amy Coney Barrett is the moral equivalent of a Nazi. But Breyer is either asking us to accept a Supreme Court that could entrench the Republican Party’s power, or denying we have such a Court right now.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="e5rHat">
|
|||
|
|
If the former is true, he should explain why the “rule of law” is worth maintaining if the people have no control over who writes the laws. If he’s claiming the latter, well, I hope he’s correct. But, should he allow his seat on the Supreme Court to be filled by another Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch, both of whom have <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/11/3/21546419/supreme-court-2020-election-question-pennslyvania-minnesota-texas-north-carolina">called for extraordinary new constraints on voting rights</a>, he may not remain correct for very long.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="G4Zvkg">
|
|||
|
|
Who’s to blame?
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KbKUoq">
|
|||
|
|
I will confess that one reason I find Breyer’s new book so frustrating is because he deflects arguments that the judiciary should be blamed for public perception of partisanship and instead places some of the blame on, well, me, among others.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wLhCSZ">
|
|||
|
|
“We have seen a gradual change in the way the media, along with other institutions that comment upon the law, understand and represent the judicial institution,” Breyer writes in one section attempting to explain why his vision of the “rule of law” is under threat. “Several decades ago, few if any of these reporters and commentators, when reporting a decision, would have mentioned the name or political party of the president who had nominated a judge to office. Today the media do so as a matter of course.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jSpF1Z">
|
|||
|
|
It’s not entirely clear whether Breyer is correct about how the press used to cover the Court, at least when it comes to politically charged cases. The day after <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113"><em>Roe v. Wade</em></a> (1973) was decided, for example, <a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/01/23/issue.html">the New York Times</a> noted President Richard Nixon’s opposition to “liberalized abortion policies,” before adding that “three of the four Justices Mr. Nixon has appointed to the Supreme Court voted with the majority.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="b0JgQr">
|
|||
|
|
Similarly, although Breyer criticizes journalists who “systematically label judges as conservative or liberal,” the Times also described a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10553454701062806540">landmark 1937 decision</a> ending the Court’s resistance to the New Deal as significant, in part because five justices joined together to “<a href="https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1937/04/13/issue.html">make the new ‘liberal’ majority of the Supreme Court</a>.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="TNkbM4">
|
|||
|
|
I cannot speak to why many modern-day Supreme Court reporters tend to refer to judges by noting who appointed them, what party they belong to, or whether they are “liberal” or “conservative.” But I can speak for myself. I do so because it is my job to describe the Supreme Court as accurately as I can, and I believe the most accurate way to do that is to present the justices as people whose politics and ideologies matter.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="r0GcOS">
|
|||
|
|
I <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644061/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-hearings-2020-merrick-garland">agree with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell</a>, for example, that it matters a great deal whether Obama nominee Merrick Garland or Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch sits on the Supreme Court. I also agree with Republicans that <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/9/29/21456409/senate-democrats-boycott-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-demand-justice">Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s</a> appointment to the Court makes it likelier to issue decisions favoring the GOP than if Biden had filled the vacancy opened up by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ZvykoH">
|
|||
|
|
I believe Republicans correctly identified Gorsuch and Barrett as judges likely to reach conservative conclusions in future decisions. I believe Republicans also correctly identified Garland as someone likely to reach liberal decisions in future cases. I believe Republicans were also correct that anyone Biden nominated would be significantly more liberal than Barrett.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6WSHrc">
|
|||
|
|
And, just in case this isn’t already clear, I also believe it matters a great deal whether Breyer is replaced by a Democrat or a Republican.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="yWK4F1">
|
|||
|
|
To be fair, Breyer doesn’t really try to defend the indefensible claim that Gorsuch does not take a “conservative” approach in the sort of politically charged cases that divide the Court, or that Ginsburg was not “liberal.” Instead, he absolves his colleagues by arguing that they act entirely in good faith: “My experience from more than thirty years as a judge has shown me that anyone taking the judicial oath takes it very much to heart,” he writes.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="g4t2d3">
|
|||
|
|
There’s no reason to doubt the good faith of someone like Gorsuch, who I believe honestly thinks he is applying “the law” when handing down decisions that align with the Republican Party’s preferred outcome in a particular case.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-right">
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/U4EA0YG0HlGUzAhG6Z_7x3pEgnE=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22544700/GettyImages_90172689_copy.jpg"/> <cite>Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer during the funeral services of Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2009.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lmNwPz">
|
|||
|
|
But, as University of Michigan Law School professor Julian Davis Mortenson <a href="https://twitter.com/jdmortenson/status/1394723717251538945">said on Twitter</a>, “‘Doing law’ as you understand it can involve using a methodology that produces predictably skewed policy results,” as well as “drawing on ‘what makes sense here’ intuitions that stem from your policy commitments, maybe even without you realizing it.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="x95Pza">
|
|||
|
|
The thing about Supreme Court justices is they are chosen by partisan presidents, typically from a pool of sitting judges with long records reflecting their tendencies to reach liberal results, conservative results, or some mix of the two. Presidents, in other words, do not need to search for partisan hacks to find nominees who are likely to decide cases in ways they will like. They just have to find nominees with demonstrated records of reaching decisions — all while acting entirely in good faith — the president’s party agrees with.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nHNWRi">
|
|||
|
|
All of that said, it is true modern-day presidents tend to do a better job of identifying justices who share their ideology compared with presidents from even a few decades ago. When <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/343/579">the <em>Steel Seizure</em> case</a> Breyer praises reached the Supreme Court, all nine justices had been appointed by either Truman or Franklin Roosevelt, both Democrats. Yet six of those justices voted against Truman’s position. Three Nixon appointees broke with him on abortion. When the Supreme Court decided to stop sabotaging the New Deal, four of the five justices in the majority had been appointed by Republican presidents.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="PQObTk">
|
|||
|
|
Indeed, as recently as 2009, the Court had two Republican appointees — Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice David Souter — who typically voted with the Court’s two Democratic nominees in highly charged cases. (Stevens and Souter dissented in <em>Bush v. Gore</em>, for example.)
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="y8TDRd">
|
|||
|
|
But something significant changed in 2010, when Stevens retired and was replaced by Kagan. For the first time in US history, the Court had a coherent bloc of five conservative justices who were all nominated by one party, and a bloc of liberal justices who were all appointed by the other. Today the Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, but the same partisan pattern still stands.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KPeCAK">
|
|||
|
|
So if journalists are likelier to refer to justices in partisan terms than they were a few decades ago, that’s probably because the Court is quite literally more partisan today than ever before.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<h3 id="TBm6kd">
|
|||
|
|
Depoliticizing the Court — and restoring democratic norms — will not be easy, and it may not be possible
|
|||
|
|
</h3>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gg1d2M">
|
|||
|
|
One of the most influential books of the early Trump years was Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938"><em>How Democracies Die</em></a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wLOxqX">
|
|||
|
|
When modern democracies fail, the two Harvard professors write, they typically fail without the drama of a military coup or successful putsch. Instead, they “die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders … who subvert the very process that brought them to power.” Often, this process happens “slowly, in barely visible steps.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1Qi59L">
|
|||
|
|
Steps such as the Supreme Court striking down much of the Voting Rights Act, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/8/22422768/supreme-court-voting-rights-florida-georgia-ron-desantis-john-roberts-suppression-crawford-shelby">paving the way for states to enact voter suppression laws</a> that the Court then upholds.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="E1Y0TD">
|
|||
|
|
One warning sign that a democracy is in trouble is when leaders start to abandon informal norms that aren’t written into any law, but are no less essential to liberal society than the rule of law or individual rights. “Two basic norms [that] have preserved America’s checks and balances in ways we have come to take for granted,” Levitsky and Ziblatt write, are “mutual toleration, or the understanding that competing parties accept one another as legitimate rivals, and forbearance, or the idea that politicians should exercise restraint in deploying their institutional prerogatives.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<figure class="e-image">
|
|||
|
|
<img alt=" " src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/t18SHctIf5zCyDwlI0TqAFSWCnk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22544713/GettyImages_1232482724_copy.jpg"/> <cite>Erin Schaff/AFP/Getty Images</cite>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
The current US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, pictured this year.
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="eccpmr">
|
|||
|
|
A president shows mutual toleration when they <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/9/24/21453184/trump-peaceful-transfer-of-power-mail-voting-supreme-court-ginsburg">peacefully cede power</a> after losing an election. A lawmaker shows mutual toleration when they accept the result of this election and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/9/22222134/hawley-and-cruz-calls-to-resign-overturn-election">do not try to overturn it</a>. Citizens show mutual toleration when they peacefully accept their leader has lost without <a href="https://www.vox.com/22217039/capitol-attack-trump-rally-election-biden-explained">taking violent steps to restore them to power</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="nXQ6Nu">
|
|||
|
|
Similarly, senators exercise forbearance when they <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644061/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-hearings-2020-merrick-garland">follow the ordinary process for confirming a president’s judicial nominees</a>, even if that president belongs to the opposite party. Justices exercise forbearance when they <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/5/18/22440256/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-edwards-vannoy-abortion-criminal-justice-constitution-stare-decisis">respect and continue to apply legal precedents</a>, even those they disagree with.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="lWFWyY">
|
|||
|
|
American democracy, in other words, is in deep trouble. Republicans at all levels have abandoned the norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, which, according to Levitsky and Ziblatt, are the glue that has kept our democracy together.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="4Rl9O2">
|
|||
|
|
The most charitable reading of Breyer’s decision to scold his fellow liberals at a time when American democracy is endangered by conservatives is that he wants to preserve the very norms Levitsky and Ziblatt praise as essential to maintain a democracy. Though Republicans didn’t show forbearance by giving Merrick Garland a confirmation hearing and a floor vote, Democrats can show forbearance in not retaliating by adding seats to the Supreme Court.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ChZbzl">
|
|||
|
|
But there’s no norm against judges announcing their retirement when a president of their own party is in office — <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17510800/anthony-kennedy-retiring-read-statement">just ask former Justice Anthony Kennedy</a>. And to the extent Breyer hopes to pressure his party into honoring norms the opposing party rejects, he’s probably fighting a losing battle.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tDxbbW">
|
|||
|
|
In a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/dont-kid-yourself-the-future-is-bleak/">2018 interview</a> with the Washington Post’s Matt O’Brien, Ziblatt warned that once a major political party abandons norms such as forbearance and mutual toleration, a death spiral may be inevitable. In every country he’s studied, Ziblatt told O’Brien, ”No matter how long the [norm-respecting party] holds out, they will eventually respond tit for tat.” Ziblatt also said he “[couldn’t] think of” any nation that has broken this cycle.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="24MHLY">
|
|||
|
|
This suggests that if American democracy is to survive, Americans who believe in it need to write a playbook no one else has succeeded in creating. It means we have to make devilish choices about when to preserve institutions and when to weaken institutions that turn against democracy. And it means we have to make these choices despite internal dissent among liberals about which path to take.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>The bipartisan consensus on broadband is a mirage</strong> -
|
|||
|
|
<figure>
|
|||
|
|
<img alt="US President Joe Biden, center right, wears a protective mask while speaking during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 13, 2021." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WZ9fdZXp61vTpEyqkzfTgSDLJpc=/167x0:2834x2000/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/69357973/GettyImages_1232869782.0.jpg"/>
|
|||
|
|
<figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
Members of Congress are focused on funding broadband connection through the infrastructure package. | T.J. Kirkpatrick/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
|
|||
|
|
</figcaption>
|
|||
|
|
</figure>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Biden wants more publicly funded internet. Cable companies and Republicans, not so much.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CNq0Dz">
|
|||
|
|
There’s a tense fight in Washington between Republicans and Democrats over President Biden’s infrastructure plan, from the amount of funding in it to the very <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/4/2/22364100/biden-human-infrastructure-jobs-plan">definition of infrastructure</a>. But on the question of addressing the internet and bridging the digital divide, there appears to be resounding agreement that broadband is very, very important and very, very bipartisan. This is a mirage.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="gqcFPg">
|
|||
|
|
Earlier this week, Vice President Kamala Harris met with members of Congress from both parties to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHU0F1EXKE">hammer out the logistics</a> of funding broadband through the infrastructure package, saying the subject is one Americans see as nonpartisan. Sen. Amy Klobuchar told <a href="https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/government-and-politics/7047853-Sen.-Amy-Klobuchar-Bipartisan-agreement-on-broadband-expansion-looks-very-promising">local media in Minnesota</a> that discussion was just focused on “nuts and bolts.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GZBYe1">
|
|||
|
|
While Republicans and the White House are still debating the cost of the overall infrastructure package, they have come to an agreement on how much the package should spend on broadband — $65 billion — after Biden <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/biden-cuts-35b-from-broadband-plan-amid-gop-opposition-deal-still-unlikely/">agreed to compromise</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/white-house-would-back-smaller-broadband-internet-boost-2021-05-21/">last week</a>. The new figure represents a significant reduction from his original broadband proposal, which had a <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22363028/biden-infrastructure-broadband-american-jobs-plan">$100 billion</a> price tag. White House press secretary Jen Psaki <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/05/21/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-may-21-2021/">said</a> the decision was “all in the spirit of finding common ground.” It appears the details are still being figured out.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="L4L9nY">
|
|||
|
|
But even though the parties have settled on a number, there isn’t a consensus on how broadband should actually work and who should be prioritized through federal efforts. Coming to an agreement on funding broadband is just one piece of the puzzle, and there are deep fault lines and disagreements over what that funding should aim to accomplish that could significantly impact who gets connected and who really benefits. Republicans and Democrats alike have said that the pandemic highlighted the internet’s crucial role in everyday life, but they have fundamental disagreements on the share of the pie that traditional cable providers should have.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<div class="c-float-right">
|
|||
|
|
<div id="RviTYs">
|
|||
|
|
<div>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1gWfTE">
|
|||
|
|
One key disagreement is a long-simmering debate<strong> </strong>over the idea of municipal broadband. Throughout the United States, some local governments, nonprofits, and co-ops have made long-term investments to build their own broadband networks without relying on the private sector. Biden is a big fan of this approach. The White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/">calls these municipal broadband networks</a> “providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities.” Notably, large cable companies that benefit from being the only provider in many areas don’t like this competition, and they <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/how-states-are-fighting-to-keep-towns-from-offering-their-own-broadband">have even lobbied for legislation banning them</a>. Broadband Now, an internet provider website, says municipal broadband is now restricted in <a href="https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/">at least 18 states</a>.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<aside id="Z7WIJx">
|
|||
|
|
<div>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
</aside>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="O97tLT">
|
|||
|
|
Some efforts have succeeded anyway. The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee, <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/9/10/21426810/internet-access-covid-19-chattanooga-municipal-broadband-fcc">managed to build its own gigabit broadband network</a>, despite opposition, including from the cable provider Comcast (Comcast is an investor in Vox Media, which owns Recode). Biden wants efforts like Chattanooga’s to be eligible for funding from his infrastructure plan.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6omjzI">
|
|||
|
|
But congressional<strong> </strong>Republicans are opposed, saying <a href="https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/broadband-in-america">there are places</a> where municipal hasn’t worked and has left taxpayers in debt, as the Senate’s Republican Policy Committee argued in a brief published <a href="https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/broadband-in-america">earlier this month</a>. Some House Republicans have even proposed national legislation limiting <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/gop-plan-for-broadband-competition-would-ban-city-run-networks-across-us/">these kinds of networks</a>. NCTA, a lobbying organization that represents a wide range of media and telecom companies, including Comcast, Charter, and Cox Communications, has <a href="https://www.ncta.com/media/media-room/statement-of-michael-powell-president-ceo-ncta-the-internet-television-association-regarding-the-white-house-infrastructure-plan">said</a> of Biden’s plan that “shared goals are not served by suggesting wrongly that the entire network is ailing and that the solution is either to prioritize government-owned networks or micromanage private networks.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vRHkpA">
|
|||
|
|
“The cable and telephone lobbyists for a long time have argued that this is socialism, that it is harming American businesses,” Christopher Mitchell, who directs the community broadband program at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, told Recode. “The lobbyists who have wanted to stop broadband competition have recognized that the ideology of the Republican Party is one that is deeply skeptical of public investments.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="15iB5D">
|
|||
|
|
Public versus private investment is not, however, the only fault line in the recent bipartisan consensus over funding broadband. There’s also long and ongoing disagreement between Republicans and Democrats over what kind of technology should be deployed to facilitate these internet connections. Right now, many get their internet routed to their homes through coaxial cable networks, while some are still dependent on DSL-copper phone lines, <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/9/10/21426810/internet-access-covid-19-chattanooga-municipal-broadband-fcc">which are even slower</a>. Biden thinks that should change, and that US broadband should be high-speed and “<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/">future proof</a>,” a term Republicans have interpreted as code for fiber. Fiber, advocates have argued, would last for decades and could be easily adjusted to account for higher and higher speed demands.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UY1YaK">
|
|||
|
|
But Republicans have said that the Biden definition of high-speed and “future proof” would make too many households eligible for subsidies that could go to people who don’t necessarily need internet updates. They’ve also accused Democrats of trying to subsidize “faster speeds [that] allow more lavish internet uses,” like streaming content in 4K, which could close off innovation, putting their “thumb on the scale” by prioritizing one type of technology: fiber. Back in February, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee proposed a suite of 28 bills focused on <a href="https://republicans-energycommerce.house.gov/news/press-release/ec-gop-leaders-unveil-the-boosting-broadband-connectivity-agenda/">deregulation</a>, and during one March hearing, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) <a href="https://www.sentinelsource.com/news/economy/cable-firms-fear-being-left-in-dust-in-biden-broadband-quest/article_60e50fb9-cdfb-5a20-b98d-3b47fa446613.html">called</a> focusing on building up high-speed internet as the “exact opposite of what needs to happen,” and would leave rural Americans behind.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1QW0ko">
|
|||
|
|
There are companies that are moving ahead with fiber on their own or that will need it in order to build out 5G networks. But legacy cable providers likely benefit if the government doesn’t prioritize this type of connection. (NCTA, the lobbying group, has argued, for instance, that federal money should focus instead on areas with <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-06/cable-firms-fear-being-left-in-dust-in-biden-fast-internet-quest?sref=Wg6QzS2e">very bad internet connectivity or none at all</a>.)<strong> </strong>Traditional cable providers, who can be the only internet providers for some consumers, don’t necessarily want to have to compete with new options based on fiber, explains Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, pointing to companies like Comcast and Charter.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="PALyq3">
|
|||
|
|
But<strong> </strong>Biden and those who support his plan say that focusing on these more advanced systems is important because demand for internet is only going to increase and that the country needs to invest in technology that can last for decades.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="s7XXXN">
|
|||
|
|
“This is a once-in-a-lifetime investment that we can make,” says Greg Guice, the government affairs director at Public Knowledge. “If you rely on some of these older technologies, like copper, then you simply can’t get the speed out of them that you need to really, as you think down the road, for the kinds of demands that are going to be on the network.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Ehbwa8">
|
|||
|
|
Underlying the tensions between Republicans and Democrats are differing opinions on the scope of the challenge. Republicans and cable companies want to concentrate the broadband discussion on areas and communities that have very little connectivity at present. Moving to high-speed and fiber, they argue, shouldn’t be the focus. But Democrats, along with some Republicans, have said the country should have a higher standard for internet speeds. That approach, Guice explains, would lend more support for building out fiber, and also frame the broadband question in a way that includes suburban and urban communities where internet connection is lacking.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NmcxJJ">
|
|||
|
|
While the Federal Communications Commission has estimated that about <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/bridging-digital-divide-all-americans">30 million Americans don’t have access to broadband</a>, that doesn’t include the people who might technically have access to the internet but <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/22363028/biden-infrastructure-broadband-american-jobs-plan">can’t afford it</a>, a problem exacerbated in areas where there’s just one internet provider. There’s also the process that’s called “<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/fcc-and-states-must-ban-digital-redlining">digital redlining,</a>” where internet providers have left communities of color and lower-income communities with worse internet access.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jgCDJR">
|
|||
|
|
It’s not clear whether these tensions will be resolved in this latest infrastructure debate. After all, the pandemic has made abundantly clear that being connected isn’t just about having internet access. It’s crucial to have internet that’s good enough to support multiple people using multiple devices at the same time, and who might need that connection to do anything from work to learn to attend a medical appointment. Advocates for future-proofing say fiber not only will last longer but acknowledges that demand for internet won’t decline or stay stagnant. It will only grow.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="3GxVOE">
|
|||
|
|
As Guice says, “Would we think it’s reasonable to add a dirt lane to I-95?”
|
|||
|
|
</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-sports">From The Hindu: Sports</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Moto3 rider Jason Dupasquier dies after crash in Italian Grand Prix</strong> - The Swiss rider was airlifted to a hospital in Florence after a crash at turn nine involving three bikes in which Tech 3 KTM’s Ayumu Sasaki was unable to avoid the Prustel GP rider</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Head coach of a sports academy arrested for sexual harassment</strong> - He was booked under five Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences following a complaint from a 19-year-old girl.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Mark Eaton, shot-blocking king and Jazz great, dies at 64</strong> - Mark Eaton, the 7-foot-4 shot-blocking king who twice was the NBA’s defensive player of the year during a career spent entirely with the Utah Jazz, ha</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Coaches to join Indian team</strong> - Pistol coaches Pavel Smirnov and Ronak Pandit left for Zagreb, Croatia, on Saturday to join the Indian shooting preparing for the Olympics in that cou</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Tomar shoots 1172</strong> - Aishwary Pratap Singh Tomar shot 1172 in men’s rifle 3-position event in the MQS section of the European shooting championship here on Saturday. The 2</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-the-hindu-national-news">From The Hindu: National News</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>3,000 laptops ready for distribution</strong> - Another academic year begins tomorrow with digital and online classes</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Monsoon arrival in Kerala delayed to June 3</strong> - The IMD had last month forecast May 31</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Panneerselvam against political parties’ intervention in vaccination camps</strong> - AIADMK coordinator O. Panneerselvam on Sunday urged Chief Minister M.K. Stalin to stop any intervention of political parties in the COVID-19 vaccinati</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Covid-19 | Serum Institute promises 9-10 crore Covishield doses in June</strong> - SII writes to Home Minister Amit Shah saying its employees have been working roung the clock to meet targets.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Delhi High Court directs West Bengal to relieve IAS officer</strong> - She sought a transfer to Himachal Pradesh cadre to join her husband.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-bbc-europe">From BBC: Europe</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Poots: European Union treating NI as a political plaything</strong> - The new DUP leader Edwin Poots has accused the European Union of damaging the NI peace process.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>France manhunt for armed ex-soldier who fired on police</strong> - Authorities tell residents to stay indoors as police hunt for the man who opened fire on police.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Belarus: Hundreds join global solidarity protests</strong> - Crowds call for the release of an activist who was arrested when his flight was grounded in Minsk.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Manchester City 0-1 Chelsea: Kai Havertz goal secures Champions League trophy for Chelsea</strong> - Chelsea win the Champions League for second time after beating Manchester City in a thrilling final in Porto.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Taksim Square: Erdogan inaugurates controversial mosque in Istanbul</strong> - Plans for the mosque, which towers over a monument to the secular republic, sparked protests in 2013.</p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-ars-technica">From Ars Technica</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The SolarWinds hackers aren’t back—they never went away</strong> - A new phishing campaign is less an escalation than a regression to the mean. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1768723">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Deepfake maps could really mess with your sense of the world</strong> - Researchers applied AI techniques to make portions of Seattle look more like Beijing - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1768676">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Heads up! The cardiovascular secrets of giraffes</strong> - Giraffes: Scary high blood pressure, yet few of the issues plaguing people with hypertension. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1768662">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Amazon devices will soon automatically share your Internet with neighbors</strong> - Amazon’s experiment wireless mesh networking turns users into guinea pigs. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1768704">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Ancient cemetery tells a tale of constant, low-level warfare</strong> - Men, women, and children were repeatedly wounded in skirmishes along the Upper Nile. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1768575">link</a></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</h1>
|
|||
|
|
<ul>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>A limbless woman crying on the beach.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
A limbless woman is sitting on the beach crying as a man approaches her.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“What’s wrong?” He asks.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“I’ve never been hugged before…” she responds.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The man hugs her and she stops crying for a second. Then the man walks away and the woman continues crying.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
A little while later, a second man approaches and asks the woman what the matter is.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“I’ve never been kissed before.” She tells him.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The man kisses her and she stops crying briefly before he too walks away.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Eventually, a third man approaches her and, again, asks her what the matter is.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“I’ve never been fucked before.” She says.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The man stops and thinks for a second before scooping her up and throwing her into the ocean waves.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“There, now you’re fucked.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Jurassic_Park00"> /u/Jurassic_Park00 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no2sb1/a_limbless_woman_crying_on_the_beach/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no2sb1/a_limbless_woman_crying_on_the_beach/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un have a meeting.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
They took place on a skyscraper in Moscow. Putin and Kim sat on table facing each other, while a bodyguard stood behind them each.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Putin and Kim argued about whose bodyguard is more loyal. To show his loyalty, Putin ordered his bodyguard to jump out of window. His bodyguard was surprised and bewildered; after some hesitation he knelt his knee over his president and cried: “Please spare me, my prezident. I have wife and children.” Putin felt sorry; he patted his shoulder and told him it was just a joke.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Watching them, Kim snorted and ordered his bodyguard to jump out of window. His bodyguard was surprised and bewildered, but soon he shouted and ran to the window. Putin was surprised; he ran and grabbed that bodyguard; yelling “Are you crazy? We’re at skyscraper!” The bodyguard yelled, with fear in his eyes.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Get off me! I have wife and children!”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Anarchist_Monarch"> /u/Anarchist_Monarch </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/nnqdxu/vladimir_putin_and_kim_jongun_have_a_meeting/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/nnqdxu/vladimir_putin_and_kim_jongun_have_a_meeting/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>A Joke for a Sunday</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Jesus was relaxing in Heaven when he noticed a familiar looking old man. Wondering if the old man was His father Joseph, Jesus asked him, “Did you, by any chance, ever have a son?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Yes,” said the old man, “but he wasn’t my biological son. He was born by a miracle, by the intervention of a magical being from the heavens.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Very interesting,” said Jesus. “Did this boy ever have to fight temptation?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Oh, yes, many times,” answered the old man. “But he eventually won. Unfortunately, he heroically died at one point, but he came back to life shortly afterwards.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Jesus couldn’t believe it. Could this actually be His father?
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“One last question,” He said. “Were you a carpenter?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
“Why yes,” replied the old man. “Yes I was.”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
Jesus rubbed His eyes and said, “Dad?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
The old man rubbed his eyes and said, “Pinocchio?”
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/cachry"> /u/cachry </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no9ymr/a_joke_for_a_sunday/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no9ymr/a_joke_for_a_sunday/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>If you lose one of your senses, your other senses get enhanced</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
This is why people with no sense of humor have a heightened sense of self’importance.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Blorb-Man"> /u/Blorb-Man </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/nnxeyt/if_you_lose_one_of_your_senses_your_other_senses/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/nnxeyt/if_you_lose_one_of_your_senses_your_other_senses/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
<li><strong>Covid is not a joke and should be taken seriously</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF -->
|
|||
|
|
<div class="md">
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
|||
|
|
A former patient was so brain damaged afterwards, he wrongly believed he’d won an election he actually lost by millions of votes.
|
|||
|
|
</p>
|
|||
|
|
</div>
|
|||
|
|
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
|||
|
|
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Blorb-Man"> /u/Blorb-Man </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no6rze/covid_is_not_a_joke_and_should_be_taken_seriously/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/no6rze/covid_is_not_a_joke_and_should_be_taken_seriously/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
|||
|
|
</ul>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
<script>AOS.init();</script></body></html>
|