481 lines
68 KiB
HTML
481 lines
68 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>27 February, 2023</title>
|
||
<style>
|
||
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%;}
|
||
div.hanging-indent{margin-left: 1.5em; text-indent: -1.5em;}
|
||
ul.task-list{list-style: none;}
|
||
</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>An Anniversary of Destruction, Loss, and Bravery in Ukraine</strong> - Ukrainians have responded with remarkable dignity and courage, but there is little to romanticize one year into the Russian invasion. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/an-anniversary-of-destruction-loss-and-bravery-in-ukraine">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>How the Government Cancelled Betty Ann’s Debts</strong> - For a ninety-one-year-old law-school graduate, the Department of Education discharged more than three hundred thousand dollars in student debt. Could relief be that simple? - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-government-forgave-betty-anns-debts">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>What Is Ron DeSantis Doing to Florida’s Public Liberal-Arts College?</strong> - DeSantis is not simply inveighing against progressive control of institutions. He is using his powers as governor to remake them. - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/what-is-ron-desantis-doing-to-floridas-public-liberal-arts-college">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Lori Lightfoot Makes Her Case to Chicago</strong> - The embattled mayor—often blamed for the city’s high crime and low morale—has presided over many crises, not all of her own making. Can she win a second term? - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-political-scene/lori-lightfoot-makes-her-case-to-chicago">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Watching Tucker Carlson for Work</strong> - According to Kat Abughazaleh, a researcher at Media Matters for America, “You don’t know Fox News until you are watching it for a job.” - <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/watching-tucker-carlson-for-work">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-vox">From Vox</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><strong>Consumers are reaching a breaking point</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="A bunch of frowny-faces emojis." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/YC5Y_domzwiIEJldTrHPF3sxdkM=/119x0:2004x1414/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/72016958/GettyImages_1402240679.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
America’s shopping spree could soon be over. | Carol Yepes/Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Corporations are testing the limits of American consumers.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="epf68I">
|
||
Over the past couple of years, there has been a somewhat confounding phenomenon going on with American consumers. They say <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2022/6/8/23158436/economy-inflation-recession-odds-stock-market">the economy is terrible</a> and <a href="https://www.vox.com/22996474/inflation-federal-reserve-nairu-ngdp-powell">are up in arms about inflation</a>, but despite all that, many of them are <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22791953/inflation-christmas-shopping-thanksgiving-black-friday-target-walmart">spending their way through it</a>. American shoppers will not be stopped — or, at least, they haven’t been stopped yet.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="To44TU">
|
||
Consumers have largely been hanging in there, economically. Stimulus checks and savings built up during the pandemic have left them with extra cash they’ve been eager to spend. Retail sales seemed to slow at the end of 2022, but in January 2023, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-economy-retail-sales-january-2023-b59cb036">they rebounded once again</a>. Despite the fact that many companies have increased prices in order to offset their own rising costs, they’ve also taken advantage of the inflationary moment to raise prices and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-25/us-corporate-profits-soar-taking-margins-to-widest-since-1950?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosmarkets&stream=business&sref=qYiz2hd0">increase their profit margins</a> to their highest level in decades — if everybody knows everything’s getting more expensive, it’s easier to get them to go along with rising costs. Plenty of executives <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/big-companies-keep-bragging-to-investors-about-price-hikes-2021-11">were quite open</a> about what was going on.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right">
|
||
<div id="AVPrxi">
|
||
<div>
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="XKIqPo">
|
||
But now, it appears the tide may be turning on how far consumers can be pushed. That extra money people were able to save during the pandemic <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23500066/pandemic-savings-inflation-recession">is dwindling</a>. Household debt <a href="https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-household-debt-jumps-1690-trillion-2023-02-16/">is up</a>. <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/news/research/2023/20230216">Delinquency rates</a> on credit cards and auto loans are still below where they were before the pandemic, but they’re starting to creep back up, and it appears younger borrowers, in particular, <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/02/younger-borrowers-are-struggling-with-credit-card-and-auto-loan-payments/">are struggling</a>. The amount of disposable income people will need to pay their debts is “likely to surpass and remain much higher than pre-pandemic levels — representing a real financial strain on households and consumer spending capacity,” wrote Greg Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, in market commentary on February 22.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Ym9M9Q">
|
||
“What we’re seeing in terms of the health of consumers’ balance sheets is that they are rapidly deteriorating. We’re seeing not just an increase in the transitions into delinquency but also an increase in the debt servicing costs because of higher interest rates and because the levels of leverage are rising. And then we’re also seeing banks and financial institutions being more cautious with credit,” Daco said in an interview with Vox. “So the combination of all of those elements is a risky one when it comes to the prospects for consumer spending.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6TucUt">
|
||
It’s an issue corporate America can’t ignore. Profit margins, while still high, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/23/corporate-americas-profit-rocket-hits-headwinds">are starting to come down</a>. Some companies, such as Kraft, are <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kraft-heinz-khc-q4-earnings-report-2022-fa266bb">slowing price increases</a> after driving them up last year. <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/home-depot-hd-q4-earnings-2022.html">In certain corners</a>, there seems to be a recognition that companies might not be able to squeeze consumers as much as they could, say, a year ago. Shoppers won’t and can’t always be along for the ride. They <a href="https://www.kearney.com/consumer-retail/article/-/insights/redefining-trading-down-trading-off-and-consumer-shopping-decisions-kci-quarterly-briefing-q1-2023">may start making trade-offs</a> or scale back spending.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="J5Xmdc">
|
||
“We are seeing some manufacturers continuing to test the resilience of the consumer, and it will depend on individual manufacturers and brands how that goes for them, but there is some inherent risk there because they have some optionality,” said Katie Thomas, who leads the Kearney Consumer Institute. She explains that consumers “are increasingly savvy at figuring out what the best bang for their buck is. They do online research, they price-compare.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="xQzFqL">
|
||
The consumer is <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11657.pdf">the backbone of the American economy</a>. That backbone is starting to bend.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="1mL84W">
|
||
That pandemic cash that helped people weather inflation is running out
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QYY6ku">
|
||
When inflation started to take off in the US in 2021 and 2022, many consumers were generally decently positioned to handle the situation. Government measures such as stimulus checks, the expanded child tax credit, and boosted unemployment insurance left people with more cash than they might have had otherwise. Beyond that, shutdowns generally meant people were spending less money overall on going to restaurants, on vacation, etc.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="UKf1FY">
|
||
“They were less interested in trying to shop around, find a deal, push back,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “They had the cash, and they were willing to spend it to buy whatever it is they wanted.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1g7BbA">
|
||
Excess savings <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/10/31/pandemic-excess-savings-consumers">peaked</a> above $2 trillion in 2021 and has started to dwindle as government stimulus has run out and the economy has gotten back to normal. Personal savings rates <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT">have declined</a> as well. In the fourth quarter of 2022, <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc.html">household debt hit</a> a record $16.9 trillion, and, as mentioned, delinquencies — meaning falling behind on payments on debts — also rose. Consumers aren’t in a disastrous situation, but they’re not as well positioned as they were. They also face an economy where inflation, while cooling, is still an issue and interest rates on their debts are rising.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right">
|
||
<aside id="Nu75tZ">
|
||
<q>“Particularly lower-income households, they’re out of cash”</q>
|
||
</aside>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="QgcjD8">
|
||
“Particularly lower-income households, they’re out of cash,” Zandi said. “They’re turning to debt to try to supplement their income, and they’re having trouble paying down that debt.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FFFJno">
|
||
That shift in household finances means companies can no longer assume that consumers will have the ability or the will to accept higher prices, Daco said. “You have to be cognizant of that, and you have to understand that if you’re playing in a market where prices are extremely important … then you may not necessarily have that much pricing power, so you may have to consider your discounting strategy and consider how consumers may trade down in the current environment.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="G8xNNw">
|
||
Companies could have to cool it a little on prices
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OwmJok">
|
||
At some point, there will be a line people won’t cross, price-wise. They’ll start to change up what they’re buying, maybe buying generic items instead of name brands, or just buying fewer or different things altogether. Apples get too expensive, consumers start buying oranges.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="kLKn5O">
|
||
Throughout much of last year, companies were quite open that the line consumers wouldn’t cross was pretty far and, in some cases, farther than they anticipated. Procter & Gamble, for example, <a href="https://www.retaildetail.eu/news/beauty-care/procter-gamble-consument-bereid-meer-te-betalen-dan-gedacht/">noted</a> that it found people were more accepting of its price increases than expected. Kellogg <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kellogg-k-q3-earnings-report-2022-11667479263">has said</a> consumers are handling the higher prices, too.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Q3fwrU">
|
||
Now that may start to shift in some cases. Kraft Heinz has <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/kraft-heinz-khc-q4-earnings-report-2022-fa266bb">said</a> it won’t hike prices anymore in 2023 after increasing them by 15.2 percent overall in 2022. Inflation was 6.5 percent for the year ending in December, less than <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/12/heres-the-inflation-breakdown-for-december-2022-in-one-chart.html">half that</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NRUJC4">
|
||
Arun Sundaram, vice president of equity research at CFRA Research, who covers companies throughout the supply chain, said there’s generally a lag between when a company’s costs go up and when they pass them on to consumers. Inflation started to creep up in 2020 and 2021, and it wasn’t until 2022 that more companies increasingly started to pass that creep through. And because of the inflationary environment, they were able to. “In normal times, pre-Covid, for example, it was a lot harder to pass higher costs to the retailer and then to the consumer because there would be a lot of negotiation, tension between the retailer and the packaged food companies,” he said. “But over the past two years, it was just well understood that everyone’s costs were going up at an exponential rate.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="dMF7DX">
|
||
In 2023, things have changed. “It’s well understood that cost pressures are easing. It’s not like costs are going down, but they’re not going up at the same rate, so because of that, we’re starting to see a little more pushback from retailers,” Sundaram said. “It won’t be as easy to raise prices going forward.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="u2fo3F">
|
||
Thomas, from the Kearney Consumer Institute, said she’s started to hear rumblings from some retailers pushing back on price increases from manufacturers because they get blamed by the consumer. People don’t get mad at Procter & Gamble because the price of their Pantene shampoo went up; they get mad at Walmart. “While consumers will complain, they probably won’t necessarily move away from the retailer completely, but that doesn’t mean that they want to be the ones taking the brunt of consumer frustration,” she said, noting that <a href="https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2023/02/16/consumer-perception-of-inflation-grocery-store-profits-much-higher-than-reality">consumers often believe</a> retailers have much higher profit margins than they actually do. “People don’t in general understand that really these are the manufacturers pushing through these price increases.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="weEFMC">
|
||
Wherever the blame is cast, some companies may still want to test consumers with prices — General Mills, for example, <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/general-mills-raises-annual-forecast-122318322.html">just lifted its business forecast</a> based on price hikes and strong demand. It now becomes a dance of how far consumers are willing to go and, in turn, how far retailers and manufacturers will take them.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="YT38Y1">
|
||
Sundaram said that consumers are being more thoughtful about purchases now than over the past couple of years. They’re more responsive to promotions and discounts, which are also appearing more because supply chain problems have begun to be worked out. He said sales volumes may be down, but they’re not down nearly as much as many companies feared. “Most manufacturers think that their sales volumes are going to decline more this year,” he said. “The big question is how much steeper will the volume decline be in 2023, because they weren’t nearly as bad as most people expected in 2022.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Et2GUh">
|
||
Beyond consumers feeling the pinch in their wallets, they are also paying closer attention to prices now — and they might be a little more dubious of companies’ claims that prices have to go up because everything’s so much more expensive across the economy. Companies should be in a position to raise prices more slowly because their costs are now rising more slowly.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="NGMtr3">
|
||
“Inflation is getting better, supply chains are getting better, but price increases seem to be more testing consumers and if they’ll take it than real cost issues,” Thomas said. “Now it does seem to be a little bit more of a profit and margin play than a necessity.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5lD8qa">
|
||
Companies that continue to increase prices run the risk of losing consumers, and when that happens, it can be hard to get them back. If they trade for a generic brand, they might find they like it just fine and stick with it.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right">
|
||
<aside id="yBlrfB">
|
||
<q>“If you’re a company and you think there’s a recession coming, that probably has an impact on your pricing strategy”</q>
|
||
</aside>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9CEyDt">
|
||
“A lot of companies raised prices last year or so and they feel like they can’t keep doing that; the continued escalation in prices is going to reduce their profits, not increase them,” said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank. There are concerns about headwinds ahead. “If you’re a company and you think there’s a recession coming, that probably has an impact on your pricing strategy that will be different than if you’re a company that thinks that demand for your products is going to continue to be strong,” Strain said. Of course, a potential recession is on consumers’ minds, too.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="E1ri8N">
|
||
Consumers at the bottom of the income spectrum will be hit the hardest
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="EGEODG">
|
||
<a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2023/2/3/23584939/jobs-report-economy-federal-reserve-inflation-recession-jay-powell">The economy is generally in pretty decent shape right now</a>, even if it doesn’t feel that way. The job market is strong, GDP has been growing, and consumers have kept up spending. But if and when consumers do push back and scale back, it’s probably not going to be coming from everyone equally.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GvDsnI">
|
||
In his recent market commentary, Daco suggested the US is likely to see a K-shaped consumer spending pattern in 2023 where low- and median-income families will have to be more careful about spending and people at the higher end of the spectrum will be able to keep going (though, perhaps, with more discretion). “For lower-income families, their excess savings have vanished, and they are now dipping into their regular savings and using credit to offset the burden of inflation,” he wrote.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vcgxbX">
|
||
“People, I think, are thinking a lot more about the cost of things that they’re purchasing,” Zandi said. “They’re becoming much more choosy in what they’re buying because they have to, particularly lower-income households.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="WzddX9">
|
||
Again, all is not doom and gloom. Many workers, especially those at the bottom of the income spectrum, have seen their wages go up significantly over the past couple of years, though it hasn’t necessarily been enough to keep up with inflation. Generally, people have reason to feel good about the job market overall.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="tAxIWD">
|
||
Still, there’s been this sneaking feeling that <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2022/6/8/23158436/economy-inflation-recession-odds-stock-market">the other shoe is about to drop</a> on the economy for months. Whether or not the US economy enters recession, it does show signs of slowing down. That’s, theoretically, the goal if we want to get inflation under control. But it doesn’t mean it’s not going to be a bumpy ride or that it’s not going to be painful for some people.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<div class="c-float-right">
|
||
<aside id="ObWPQ5">
|
||
<q>Consumers who have had to pinch pennies forever have to start doing so again</q>
|
||
</aside>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7YzjSB">
|
||
We live in a consumerist society, and for the past couple of years, as frustrating as inflation has been, it’s been nice for many people to be able to participate and to have the money to spend if they wanted to, especially people who aren’t used to having that luxury. It could soon be the case that consumers who have had to pinch pennies forever have to start doing so again.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Xnucz2">
|
||
It’s probably also worth noting that, amid all this, a lot of companies are still going to come out on top. “The bottom line is that big corporations are still doing very, very well thanks to price hikes and inflation, whether those price hikes were implemented now or at the beginning of last year,” said Rakeen Mabud, chief economist and managing director of policy and research at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive think tank. “Because of decades of rampant consolidation across industries in our economy, it’s very hard for consumers to push back against these price hikes.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GkTC0Q">
|
||
Consumers might soon get some more leverage to be able to push back, if only because they’ll have no other choice.
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Here’s what arming Ukraine could look like in the future</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="Left: President Zelenskyy wearing his signature army green sweatshirt and pants. Center: President Macron, wearing a black suit. Right: German Chancellor Scholz wearing a black suit and smiling." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/HSnZO2lRh7X71JQCiyv47uFBAQg=/85x0:2698x1960/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/72015914/1246902482.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the Elysee Presidential Palace. | Umit Donmez/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
France, Germany, and the UK proposed a new defense plan — that might be a subtle bid for peace negotiations.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="6Enkaj">
|
||
While NATO issued a statement on Friday presenting a united front, echoing President Biden’s talk of unwavering support for Ukraine, officials in Germany, France, and the UK reportedly <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/natos-biggest-european-members-float-defense-pact-with-ukraine-38966950?mod=mktw">proposed a limited security pact</a> with the goal of fostering peace negotiations.<strong> </strong>The proposed pact between Ukraine and NATO would<strong> </strong>provide the nation with sufficient firepower to fend off Russian aggression — while also tacitly encouraging talks between Russia and Ukraine — raising questions about the future of the conflict.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bWRW8W">
|
||
The proposal contrasts somewhat with US President Joe Biden’s commitment to unwavering support for Ukraine. In a speech in Warsaw on Wednesday, Biden promised that “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia — never.” His surprise trip to Ukraine and Poland marked the one-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7sYKEV">
|
||
NATO’s charter requires unanimous consensus to adopt any new proposal, so the tripartite plan is far from a done deal. And there’s been somewhat more urgency to offer major support from nations in Eastern Europe, geographically closer to Russia and potentially more at risk themselves of a Russian invasion should Ukraine be unable to deliver a crushing defeat and take back all its territory.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="37iJKL">
|
||
Whether the defense pact is directly linked to efforts to negotiate a peace deal is a looming question, Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Vox in an interview. But it’s a critical question, given Russia’s insistence on prosecuting this war despite significant casualties on both sides.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="KXVEpb">
|
||
What would the pact include, and what’s the purpose of it?
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="VieyVY">
|
||
<a href="https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/88588">France and Germany</a> in particular have been somewhat reluctant to throw their full weight behind the effort to support Ukraine. Whether that’s French President Emmanuel Macron’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/world/europe/macron-security-guarantees-russia.html">willingness to entertain Russia’s security concerns</a> or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s indecision regarding sending German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine, the two nations have provided a periodically frustrating counterweight to NATO efforts to support Ukraine. That’s in stark contrast to the UK position, which has overall been extremely open to giving Ukraine military support.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vN5ZLv">
|
||
“So far the UK had rather a position which was closer to the central and Eastern European states, whereas Germany and France were those who always kept in the back of their minds the possibility of negotiations,” Fix said. “So it’s a little bit surprising to see those three countries put together.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="w0UuC5">
|
||
The plan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/17/rishi-sunak-speech-ukraine-munich-security-conference">initially proposed by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak</a>, would give Ukraine access to advanced NATO weaponry, according to reporting from <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/natos-biggest-european-members-float-defense-pact-with-ukraine-38966950?mod=mktw">the Wall Street Journal</a>. Sunak has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk-will-help-other-countries-willing-send-aircraft-ukraine-sunak-says-2023-02-18/">also supported giving Ukraine fighter aircraft</a> in the future.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="oudyfg">
|
||
Increased access to the NATO arsenal would clearly be an advantage for Ukraine, but it would be limited, should the proposal go through. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Germany-France-UK proposal would not offer Article Five protection to Ukraine. That principle of the NATO charter holds that the other members of the treaty are bound to come to the aid of a member nation under attack, should the nation make that request. Nor would it be a promise to station NATO troops in Ukraine; a particular bogeyman for Russia has been the threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wJiLLu">
|
||
The Article Five protection has been of particular concern for other NATO members; should Ukraine become part of the alliance and come under attack from Russia, member states would have to come to its defense, potentially risking a massive, calamitous ground war — or worse, nuclear conflict.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8ZT4qr">
|
||
The pact looks like somewhat of a continuation of the current arrangement, that is, Western military support short of NATO membership. But Ukraine has already applied to be a NATO member and has stated its intention to work toward membership throughout the war. One of Russia’s initial terms for negotiation, after its invasion one year ago, was that Ukraine remain neutral and commit to never joining NATO; it’s not clear whether the proposed pact would prevent Ukraine from ever joining the alliance, though Fix said Ukraine would certainly work to ensure that was not the case. Vox reached out to a NATO spokesperson for comment but did not receive a response by press time.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="txtbWF">
|
||
The backdrop of the proposed plan is, according to French, German, and UK officials interviewed by the WSJ, to promise Ukraine protection and access to weapons in the hopes that such security guarantees would incentivize Ukraine to pursue peace negotiations with Russia. As <a href="https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23600837/ukraine-war-russia-whats-next">Vox’s Jen Kirby wrote Friday</a>, pressure for negotiations looks to be on the horizon:
|
||
</p>
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="sPcHEw">
|
||
Right now, the West seems willing to give Ukraine what it needs, to let Kyiv capitalize on this particular moment. But Ukraine is unlikely to recapture all of the territory within its internationally recognized borders, and this war could start to turn into a stalemate. If that happens, it may give way to a new kind of Western solidarity: one that supports Ukraine but also begins to quietly pressure them to negotiate.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="B82hJl">
|
||
But it’s not clear to what extent the two objectives — arming Ukraine and pursuing peace negotiations with Russia — are conditionally linked, Fix said. “It might be that these two issues are discussed at the same time, but I would find it difficult if there was a linkage, and I find it difficult to believe that the linkage would be Ukraine only gets additional defense and security support if it agrees to negotiations.” Rather, it may be that the defense pact is a means to test the waters and determine the appetite for negotiations.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="9S8AzL">
|
||
Ukraine, though, is less inclined than it was a year ago to participate in any negotiations. As Anchal Vohra wrote in <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/22/ukraine-crimea-russia-take-back/">Foreign Policy</a> Wednesday, Zelenskyy was once willing to sacrifice Crimea to achieve an end to the fighting; now, the Ukrainian military is reportedly making plans to take the area, which has been under Russian control since 2014, back.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="ZwOGZU">
|
||
Are negotiations even possible at this point?
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qDZXsm">
|
||
But given Russian President Vladimir Putin’s commitment to prosecuting this war — no matter how many losses Russia sustains both territorially and in terms of troop casualties — it’s worth asking whether it even makes sense to pursue negotiations with Putin.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="bCZ3sl">
|
||
Russia doesn’t have a good track record of following through with its obligations under international agreements; for example, the country has violated 2015’s Minsk II agreement, which calls for an end to hostilities in eastern Ukraine, a removal of Russian troops there, and restoration of the area to Ukrainian control. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreements-ukraine-conflict-2022-02-21/">Moscow obliterated that agreement</a>, claiming that since there were no Russian troops involved in the fighting, it wasn’t party to the conflict.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="EP93sH">
|
||
Putin has painted the West and NATO as the aggressors in this conflict and an existential threat to Russia. “They have one goal: to disband the former Soviet Union and its fundamental part — the Russian Federation,” Putin said in an interview for state TV station Rossiya 1 that aired Sunday, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-russia-must-take-into-account-nato-nuclear-capability-state-tv-2023-02-26/">according to Reuters</a>. Putin also claimed in the interview that the West planned to carve up Russia and take control of its natural resources, as well as destroy the Russian people.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="WmyESs">
|
||
“Doubling down isn’t merely the choice that they made, but it’s also, increasingly, the only choice they’ve left themselves,” Gavin Wilde, a Russia expert and senior fellow in the technology and international affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, <a href="https://www.vox.com/world-politics/23600837/ukraine-war-russia-whats-next">told Kirby last week</a>. “It’s hard for me to discern whether that’s self-sabotage or an effort to get the West to understand — or the US in particular — how existential they’ve chosen to make this conflict, and all the escalatory implications that that entails.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ziMUDy">
|
||
It also potentially opens the door for Russia to use nuclear weapons in accordance with its doctrine, which allows such deployment in the case of an existential threat, whether from nuclear weapons, conventional forces, or some other weapon of mass destruction, which threatens the existence of the Russian state.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="J52lNU">
|
||
To that end, Putin is again raising the stakes for nuclear escalation, both by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-update-russias-elite-ukraine-war-major-speech-2023-02-21/">suspending the New START treaty</a> and by claiming to have deployed new ground-based strategic nuclear weapons systems. The New START treaty was the only remaining nuclear treaty between Russia and the US; its suspension raises the possibility that Russia could resume nuclear tests and increase its already massive nuclear arsenal — without checks from the US.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="vePBDx">
|
||
Given the dire picture Putin is painting for the Russian people, it’s not clear Russia would be interested in coming to the negotiating table, even if NATO were to adopt the proposed security pact.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ikrTff">
|
||
“For Putin, his main possibility to stay in power is to continue this war, and to make it a forever war, because he might perceive it as being so closely linked to his own survival,” Fix said. “So even testing out the possibility of negotiations with Ukraine does not mean it will actually lead to something on the Russian side.”
|
||
</p></li>
|
||
<li><strong>Texas asks a Trump judge to declare most of the federal government unconstitutional</strong> -
|
||
<figure>
|
||
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/s6PXML6zfpK2dxV69LGIgJzxKYI=/459x0:7798x5504/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/72014813/1435732381.0.jpg"/>
|
||
<figcaption>
|
||
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton greets former President Donald Trump at a 2022 rally in Robstown, Texas. | Brandon Bell/Getty Images
|
||
</figcaption>
|
||
</figure>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Ordinarily, this lawsuit would be laughed out of court. But you never can tell with Trump’s judges.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="AJOrEC">
|
||
Earlier this month, Texas’s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Quorum%20Clause%20Complaint.pdf">filed a lawsuit</a> claiming that the $1.7 trillion spending law that keeps most of the federal government — <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/29/politics/joe-biden-omnibus/index.html">including the US military</a> — operating through September of 2023 is unconstitutional.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="8KfjD8">
|
||
Paxton’s claims in <em>Texas v. Garland</em>, which turn on the fact that many of the lawmakers who voted for the bill voted by proxy, should fail. They are at odds with the Constitution’s explicit text. And a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5057858705774923746&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">bipartisan panel</a> of a powerful federal appeals court in Washington, DC, already rejected a similar lawsuit in 2021.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="7eppZs">
|
||
Realistically, this lawsuit is unlikely to prevail even in the current, highly conservative Supreme Court. Declaring a law that funds most of the federal government unconstitutional would be an extraordinary act, especially given the very strong legal arguments against Paxton’s position.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="fXcxCh">
|
||
But the case is a window into Paxton’s broader litigation strategy, where he frequently raises weak legal arguments undercutting federal policies before right-wing judges that <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/10/23296841/supreme-court-biden-judiciary-republicans-texas-judge-shopping-immigration-obamacare">he has personally chosen because of their ideology</a>. And these judges often do sow chaos throughout the government, which can last months or longer, before a higher court steps in.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Z4zSWj">
|
||
Texas’s federal courts give plaintiffs an unusual amount of leeway to <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/10/23296841/supreme-court-biden-judiciary-republicans-texas-judge-shopping-immigration-obamacare">choose which judge will hear their case</a>, an odd feature of these courts that Paxton often takes advantage of to ensure that his lawsuits will be heard by judges who are likely to toe the Republican line. These decisions, moreover, appeal to <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/27/23496264/supreme-court-fifth-circuit-trump-court-immigration-housing-sexual-harrassment">the deeply conservative</a> United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="HzV9oL">
|
||
Paxton filed the <em>Garland</em> case in Lubbock, Texas, where <a href="https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/orders/3-345.pdf">100 percent of all federal lawsuits are heard by a Republican appointee</a>. Two-thirds of such cases are automatically assigned to Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who will hear this suit.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="pJKQGW">
|
||
Hendrix, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Texas, is a bit of an unknown quantity. In his brief time on the bench, Hendrix did hand down one <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22187311-judge-hendrix-texas-emtala-opinion">poorly reasoned decision</a> undercutting a federal statute that requires most hospitals to perform medically necessary abortions. But Hendrix’s thin record does not tell us enough to know whether he’d actually be so aggressive as to declare most of the United States government unconstitutional.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="1x4okg">
|
||
The Texas federal bench is also riddled with judges — <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/17/23512766/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-trump-abortion-immigration-birth-control">Matthew Kacsmaryk</a>, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/11/29/23484335/supreme-court-united-states-texas-ice-immigration-drew-tipton-trump">Drew Tipton</a>, and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/1/4/22866839/supreme-court-covid-vaccination-navy-seals-reed-oconnor-religion-military">Reed O’Connor</a> are probably the best known among them — who’ve largely behaved as rubber stamps for any right-leaning litigant who appears before them. It’s notable that Paxton chose to bring this case in Lubbock, where he was likely to draw Hendrix as his judge, rather than bringing this suit before Kacsmaryk or Tipton (Kacsmaryk hears 100 percent of federal cases filed in Amarillo, Texas. Tipton hears all cases filed in Victoria, Texas). But it remains to be seen whether Hendrix will show the same contempt for the rule of law as a Kacsmaryk or a Tipton.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KYLcKg">
|
||
So, while this case probably isn’t an immediate cause for alarm, it is a reminder that no lawsuit filed in Texas’s federal courts can safely be ignored.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="3bkOVL">
|
||
Paxton’s lawsuit claims that the law funding the federal government is unconstitutional because it was passed using proxy voting
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="qLlzQv">
|
||
In 2020, at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the US House of Representatives voted to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21272260/democrats-house-pelosi-mccarthy-proxy-voting-supreme-court-constitution">permit its members to cast votes by proxy</a> for as long as the public health emergency arising out of that pandemic was in effect. Under this rule, a member of the House who is present in the Capitol may <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/965/text">cast proxy votes on behalf of up to 10 colleagues</a>, provided that those colleagues give the member written authorization to act as their proxy, and provided that those colleagues give the member instructions on how to vote.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Vq7e2D">
|
||
At the time it was enacted, the constitutionality of this rules change was uncertain because no court had ever ruled on whether proxy voting is permissible.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="sezolX">
|
||
Indeed, shortly after the proxy voting rule took effect, 21 House Republicans — most likely emboldened by the fact that the federal judiciary is dominated by Republican appointees — filed a lawsuit claiming that the new House rule was unconstitutional. But that case, known as <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5057858705774923746&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>McCarthy v. Pelosi</em></a>, was rejected by a bipartisan panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mccarthy-v-pelosi/">decided not to review that decision</a> in January of 2022.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="RXiagH">
|
||
Armed with this bipartisan ruling that proxy voting is constitutional, the House continued to use it until this year, when the new Republican majority <a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-united-states-government-us-republican-party-office-of-congressional-ethics-pandemics-60b4f098523b982b549823f4b3e8f9e4">eliminated the rule permitting proxy voting</a>. When Congress met in late December to fund the government for most of 2023, many House members voted by proxy. According to Paxton’s lawsuit, a majority of the House — 226 members — <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Quorum%20Clause%20Complaint.pdf">did not physically attend the session</a> when this funding bill received its final vote, voting by proxy instead.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ttxqBq">
|
||
Paxton’s lawsuit rests on a provision of the Constitution which states that “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">a Majority of each [House of Congress] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business</a>.” He argues that members of the House must actually be physically present in the US Capitol to count toward this quorum.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="OdD1vi">
|
||
As the DC Circuit’s decision in <em>McCarthy</em> suggests, there are serious legal problems with this argument.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="oTgJ1G">
|
||
Three legal reasons why Paxton’s lawsuit should fail
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="BLQoCU">
|
||
The most glaring flaw in Paxton’s argument is that, while the Constitution does state that a majority of the House “shall constitute a quorum,” it is silent regarding what process Congress must use to determine if a quorum is present. Nor does it state that members must actually be physically present at a particular location in order to count toward a quorum.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GH7hPZ">
|
||
Very much to the contrary, the Constitution provides that “<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">each House may determine the rules of its proceedings</a>.” That indicates that the House of Representatives, and the House of Representatives alone, gets to decide what the rules are governing whether a particular member is able to contribute to a quorum. Can a member contribute to a quorum if they are present only by proxy? The Constitution’s text indicates that the House alone will decide this question.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="FMfpEp">
|
||
Paxton relies on two older Supreme Court decisions, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/144/1"><em>United States v. Ballin</em></a> (1892) and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1084603203385772435&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr"><em>Christoffel v. United States</em></a> (1949), which he cites for the proposition that members must be “actually and physically present” to contribute to a quorum. But the <em>Ballin</em> and <em>Christoffel</em> decisions, when read in full, actually undermine his arguments.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="r4kkXl">
|
||
<em>Ballin</em> asked whether a bill was lawfully enacted if it passed the House while a majority was physically present, but where only a minority of the House’s members actually voted on the bill. Paxton quotes a single line in <em>Ballin</em>, which states that “all that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises,” to support the proposition that a majority of the House must actually be physically present for a quorum to exist.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="ESJ7yP">
|
||
But the very next line of the opinion undercuts Paxton’s argument. “But how shall the presence of a majority be determined?” <em>Ballin </em>asks, before answering that this question should be answered by the House itself. “The constitution has prescribed no method of making this determination, and it is therefore within the competency of the house to prescribe any method which shall be reasonably certain to ascertain the fact.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="5b5d67">
|
||
Paxton’s reading of <em>Christoffel </em>is similarly misguided, as that decision also emphasized “what rules the House has established and whether they have been followed.” So both precedents suggest that the House of Representatives alone gets to decide what its rules are for establishing a quorum — and not the federal judiciary.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="MjDwlD">
|
||
Meanwhile, another provision of the Constitution, which says that members of Congress “shall not be questioned in any other place” for “any speech or debate in either House” also cuts against Paxton’s argument in <em>Garland</em>. Indeed, the DC Circuit <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5057858705774923746&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">ruled in <em>McCarthy</em></a><em> </em>that this, often called the speech and debate clause, prohibits courts from interfering with how the House conducts votes on legislation.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wrPKx6">
|
||
Although that clause refers explicitly to only speech or debate on the House floor, the Supreme Court has long read it broadly. The Court held in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16664819708581322628&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1"><em>Doe v. McMillan</em></a> (1973) that this clause “includes within its protections anything ‘generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.’” Under <em>Doe</em>, that includes “voting by Members” on legislation.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="wnOBwc">
|
||
Similarly, in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739100783028836019&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1"><em>Gravel v. United States</em></a> (1972), the Court established that the speech and debate clause protects against lawsuits challenging legislative actions that make up “an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="CE0sr4">
|
||
A House rule permitting members who are not physically present in the Capitol to vote by proxy involves the very sort of “House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation” that the Court discussed in <em>Gravel</em>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="GBfAyq">
|
||
Finally, there’s a third reason why Paxton’s suit should fail. The Supreme Court has long recognized that certain disputes involve “political questions” that are beyond the reach of an unelected judiciary, and must be decided by the two elected branches of government. In <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/"><em>Baker v. Carr</em></a> (1962), the Court laid out several categories of cases that involve these sorts of political questions, including a case that involves an “unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="74nGYe">
|
||
The Court, in other words, recognized that there are some decisions by the political branches of government that, once made, cannot be unmade by the judiciary because doing so would do too much harm or cause too much embarrassment to the nation.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="jvwREY">
|
||
The decision to fund the federal government for nearly an entire year is just such a decision. Republicans had a fair chance to litigate the constitutionality of proxy voting in the <em>McCarthy</em> case. They lost that lawsuit before a bipartisan panel of judges, and a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees had an opportunity to consider the <em>McCarthy</em> case and decided not to hear it. Congress then relied on the judiciary’s decision in <em>McCarthy</em> to enact legislation funding most of the federal government’s operations for nearly an entire year.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="KmgnuM">
|
||
The funding legislation, moreover, was bipartisan. And it was the product of months of negotiations over the 2023 federal budget. Sixty-eight senators voted for this law, <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00421.htm">including 18 Republicans</a>. And, if this law were declared unconstitutional, that would mean that the entire 2023 budget for most Cabinet departments is unlawful. It would also mean that every paycheck received by a member of the United States military since the law took effect is unconstitutional.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="PfCYa3">
|
||
It’s hard to imagine a case that involves a greater need for “unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<h3 id="v6bnkr">
|
||
So what is likely to happen in the <em>Garland </em>case?
|
||
</h3>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="o8rBxl">
|
||
Given the weight of these legal authorities, it is unlikely that even the current Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, would order a government shutdown. But even if the Supreme Court eventually reverses a lower court decision striking down the spending law, Hendrix — and the <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/27/23496264/supreme-court-fifth-circuit-trump-court-immigration-housing-sexual-harrassment">far right Fifth Circuit</a>, which will hear any appeal of Hendrix’s decision — could create a considerable amount of chaos in the interim.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="Iqikzq">
|
||
Hendrix, who became a federal judge in 2019, has a fairly thin record. So it is tough to determine whether he is the sort of ideologue who might order a government shutdown from the bench. Again, Hendrix did hand down <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22187311-judge-hendrix-texas-emtala-opinion">one anti-abortion decision that is genuinely alarming</a>, in part because it is <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23289324/abortion-supreme-court-emtala-medically-necessary-doj-biden-hospitals">doubtful that he even had jurisdiction</a> to hear that case in the first place. But he otherwise has not distinguished himself in his brief time on the bench.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="baj4k2">
|
||
This does not necessarily mean that he will do Paxton’s bidding in a lawsuit claiming that most of the federal government is unconstitutional.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="B11o2x">
|
||
But the fact remains that, given the opportunity to effectively choose his own judge in the <em>Garland </em>case, Paxton chose to file his lawsuit in a location where he was likely to draw Judge Hendrix. That suggests Paxton, at least, believes that he has a real chance of obtaining a disruptive decision from Hendrix in <em>Garland</em>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom" id="z2ssxp">
|
||
</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>Abhinand lifts maiden National under-15 title</strong> - Sports Bureau</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>Watch | Why is the cricket bat-making industry in Kashmir in trouble?</strong> - A video on the shortage of willow clefts in Kashmir that has affected the manufacturing and supply of cricket bats</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>Evaldo, Breeze Bluster, Leopard Rock and Ahead Of Time impress</strong> -</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>If you don’t score runs in India, you will get flak: Ganguly on KL Rahul</strong> - Stripped of vice captaincy, Rahul hasn’t crossed 25-run mark in his last 10 Test knocks</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>New Zealand vs England | Record-breaker Williamson bats Black Caps back into 2nd Test</strong> - At stumps England was 48/1, needing 210 from 103 overs on the last day to sweep the two-match Test series</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>Supreme Court to hear pleas related to coal block allocation in Chhattisgarh</strong> - Supreme Court was told by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for RRVUNL, that the extraction of coal is halted and the whole matter is at “standstill” and hence, the case needed to be heard</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>Congress highlights ED notice to Raveendran to assail government</strong> - Citing Raveendran’s ‘disinclination’ to appear before ED, KPCC president says Mr. Vijayan is shielding him from probe out of fear that he would face legal jeopardy if his private secretary spilt the beans to the ED</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>AITUC stages protest seeking payment of wages to contract workers</strong> -</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>Woman threatens to end life by jumping from Collectorate building in Kakinada</strong> -</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>CM Pinarayi Vijayan condemns Sisodia’s arrest</strong> -</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>Italy migrant boat shipwreck: More than 100 people feared dead</strong> - At least 62 migrants have died, including children, with many still missing after the boat sank in rough seas.</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>Belarusian opposition says it damaged Russian warplane</strong> - The aircraft was struck multiple times at the Machulishchy air base near Belarus’ capital, 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>Ukraine war: How Russia took the south - and then got stuck</strong> - The story of Russia’s rapid advance in southern Ukraine, told by the people who managed to stop it.</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>Ukraine war: The renowned airman fighting from a low-flying helicopter</strong> - The BBC gets rare access to a renowned airman and his ageing helicopter during a low-flying mission.</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>Turkey earthquakes: Collapsed buildings investigation widens</strong> - More than 600 people are being investigated over whether failings in construction made the disaster worse.</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>Shortly before liftoff, SpaceX cancels a crew launch due to igniter issues</strong> - “Standing down from tonight’s launch of Crew-6 due to a TEA-TEB ground system issue.” - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1920148">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Where a kid can be a kid: Recapping episode 7 of HBO’s The Last of Us</strong> - Kyle and Andrew make sure no insight gets “Left Behind” in this DLC-inspired episode. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1920117">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>How an early-warning radar could prevent future pandemics</strong> - A tool called metagenomic sequencing can help detect unknown pathogens. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1920075">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Amazon has a donkey meat problem</strong> - Lawsuit claims selling supplements containing donkey meat is illegal in California. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1919892">link</a></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>The return of Flat Earth, the grandfather of conspiracy theories</strong> - A new book argues Flat Earth beliefs provide a guide to conspiratorial thinking. - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/?p=1919818">link</a></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h1 data-aos="fade-right" id="from-jokes-subreddit">From Jokes Subreddit</h1>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Why didn’t Leia email Obi-Wan the Death-Star plans?</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF --></p>
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The Jedi Code forbids attachments.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/ElfLord01"> /u/ElfLord01 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11d5cke/why_didnt_leia_email_obiwan_the_deathstar_plans/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11d5cke/why_didnt_leia_email_obiwan_the_deathstar_plans/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>what’s the difference between a large pizza and an American?</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF --></p>
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The pizza can feed a family of 4
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/user72230"> /u/user72230 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11cmt0n/whats_the_difference_between_a_large_pizza_and_an/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11cmt0n/whats_the_difference_between_a_large_pizza_and_an/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>An engineer dies and goes up to heaven.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF --></p>
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
At the Pearly Gates, St Peter says to the engineer “Sorry pal, you’re not on the list. You can’t get into heaven.” The engineer says “Wait a minute, I always donated to charity, my wife and I raised two orphans we adopted, I attended church regularly, what do you mean I’m not on the list to get into heaven?” St. Peter says “Look I don’t make the rules, you’re not on the list, that means you go to hell.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The engineer goes down to hell and introduces himself, gets to know the devil and says “Hey I could make a few changes to make things more comfortable down here.” He installs a state-of-the-art air conditioning system and all of a sudden it’s a pleasant 68 degrees F in Hell. God looks down and realizes he must have made a mistake and given St Peter the wrong list.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
God says to the Devil, send me back that engineer. I made a mistake, he belongs in heaven. The devil says forget about it, this guy’s great, I’m not giving him up. God says “Oh yeah? You send him back up right now, or I’ll sue!”
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
The devil says to God “Oh yeah? And where are YOU gonna get a lawyer?”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/MadisonPearGarden"> /u/MadisonPearGarden </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11cyipt/an_engineer_dies_and_goes_up_to_heaven/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11cyipt/an_engineer_dies_and_goes_up_to_heaven/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>Chuck Norris called 911</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF --></p>
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
And asked if they needed help.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Juggernaut_Spammer"> /u/Juggernaut_Spammer </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11ckg51/chuck_norris_called_911/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11ckg51/chuck_norris_called_911/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
<li><p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"><strong>They DoD realized they have too many Generals.</strong> - <!-- SC_OFF --></p>
|
||
<div class="md">
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
So they offer a retirement package where they have a doctor measure the distance between any two points on their body and they get $10,000 for every inch.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
An Air Force General is the first two take the offer and has the doctor measure him from the top of this head to the bottom of this feet. The General is 76 inches tall, so he gets $760,000.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Then an Admiral takes up the offer and has the doctor measure from the bottom of his left foot all the way up and around the top of his head to the bottom of his right foot. This ends up being 136 inches, so he gets $1,360,000.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
Then a Marine General takes the offer and he asks the doctor to measure from the tip of his penis to his balls. The doctor asks him, “Are you sure? I can measure anywhere else…” But the General insists, so the doctor tells him to drop ’em.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom">
|
||
But after the General drops ’em, the doctor says, “Wait, where are your balls?” The General replies, “Oh, they’re somewhere in Vietnam.”
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
<!-- SC_ON -->
|
||
<p data-aos="fade-left" data-aos-anchor-placement="bottom-bottom"> submitted by <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/bigwolf29"> /u/bigwolf29 </a> <br/> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11chvhi/they_dod_realized_they_have_too_many_generals/">[link]</a></span> <span><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/11chvhi/they_dod_realized_they_have_too_many_generals/">[comments]</a></span></p></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<script>AOS.init();</script></body></html> |