;)
The Conversation -- June 29, 2024
Presidential Race
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times: “In Washington, people often become what they start out scorning. This has happened to Joe Biden. In his misguided quest for a second term that would end when he’s 86, he has succumbed to behavior redolent of Trump. And he is jeopardizing the democracy he says he wants to save.... Jill Biden, lacking the detachment of a Melania and enjoying the role of first lady more, has been pushing — and shielding — her husband, beyond a reasonable point.... He has age-related issues, and those go in only one direction.... James Carville, who also said awhile back that the president should renounce a second term, told me Biden should call former Presidents Clinton and Obama to the White House and decide on five Democratic stars to address their convention in August.”
Toluse Olorunnipa & Matt Viser of the Washington Post: “... after a debate performance where his stumbles and meandering responses sent shock waves through the Democratic Party, [President] Biden’s enormously consequential decision to run as an 81-year-old after initially saying he would be a transitional figure has come under harsher scrutiny, raising fresh questions about his small circle of advisers and the Democratic leaders who facilitated his unprecedented push to remain in office until age 86.... There were always warning signs. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in September 2022 showed that 56 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents said the party should pick someone else as their nominee.... 'Obviously that debate was a [f----ing] disaster,' Jon Favreau, a former Obama speechwriter and podcast host, wrote on X afterward, suggesting that Democrats needed to have a 'serious discussion' about replacing Biden as their nominee.”
Paul Kane of the Washington Post: “Democratic voters and lawmakers keep backing much older candidates for president and congressional leadership posts, even though there are plenty of youthful up-and-comers.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Shear of the New York Times: “Millions of Americans saw one Joe Biden on Thursday night: halting, hesitant, meandering and looking burdened by every one of his 81 years. Democrats were aghast. Fourteen hours later, a smaller number of television viewers saw a different Joe Biden: forceful and confident, landing political punches on ... Donald J. Trump with ease. Democrats in the room cheered.... The differences in the two appearances could not have been more stark.... The afternoon appearance in a fairground warehouse in North Carolina was seen by far fewer people, and seemed unlikely to immediately quell the hand-wringing among Washington consultants, media pundits and ordinary voters.” An NBC News story is here. ~~~
~~~ In North Carolina Friday, President Biden addressed his debate performance:
Marie: Do you remember how laughable we found it when Trump claimed, "I alone can fix it"? Well, it's just as laughable when Biden implies, "I alone can beat him."
Jonathan Allen of NBC News: “Some Democrats began calling for President Joe Biden to step aside so the party can nominate another candidate after he stumbled badly in Thursday's debate against ... Donald Trump.... It's 'time to talk about an open convention and a new Democratic nominee,' said a ... Democratic lawmaker who has been a solid Biden supporter.... Even those who want a replacement candidate doubt that the party can move Biden aside, aren’t certain who could win the party’s nod in his absence and don’t know whether a substitute could beat Trump in November.”
** New York Times Editors: “The president appeared on Thursday night as the shadow of a great public servant. He struggled to explain what he would accomplish in a second term. He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence. Mr. Biden has been an admirable president.... But the greatest public service Mr. Biden can now perform is to announce that he will not continue to run for re-election. As it stands, the president is engaged in a reckless gamble.... Mr. Biden challenged Mr. Trump to this verbal duel.... The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test.... Mr. Trump’s own performance ought to be regarded as disqualifying. He lied brazenly and repeatedly about his own actions, his record as president and his opponent. He described plans that would harm the American economy, undermine civil liberties and fray America’s relationships with other nations. He refused to promise that he would accept defeat.... The clearest path for Democrats to defeat a candidate defined by his lies is to deal truthfully with the American public: acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race, and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place to defeat Mr. Trump in November.” (Also linked yesterday.)
The following two opinion pieces are in the same thread. Kristof's follows Krugman's: ~~~
~~~ ** Paul Krugman of the New York Times: “Joe Biden has done an excellent job as president. In fact, I consider him the best president of my adult life. Based on his policy record, he should be an overwhelming favorite for re-election. But he isn’t, and on Thursday night he failed to rise to the occasion when it really mattered.... Given where we are, I must very reluctantly join the chorus asking Biden to voluntarily step aside, with emphasis on the 'voluntary' aspect.” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times: “President Biden is a good man who capped a long career in public service with a successful presidential term. But I hope he reviews his debate performance Thursday evening and withdraws from the race, throwing the choice of a Democratic nominee to the convention in August.... Mr. President, one way you can serve your country in 2024 is by announcing your retirement and calling on delegates to replace you, for that is the safest course for our nation.” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Recently added to the thread above (so currently at the top of the page) ~~~
~~~ Jonathan Alter of the New York Times: “... now panicking senior Democrats have a decent shot at prevailing upon the president to withdraw. He should do so gracefully and instruct his delegates to vote for whoever is chosen in Chicago, where the Democratic convention opens on Aug. 19. That move would have the short-term advantage of wrecking the Republican convention, which opens in Milwaukee on July 15. The G.O.P. plans to spend four days savaging [President] Biden. If he dropped out, Republicans would have to explain what they want to do for the country, and the public would realize the only answer is: nothing but harm it in unpopular ways.” Alter lays out the way Democrats could go about nominating a different candidate.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post: “If [President Biden] has the strength and wisdom to step aside, the Democrats will have two months to choose another candidate. It will be a wide-open and noisy race, but that will be invigorating for the country. It’s never too late to do the right thing.”
Marie: If, like me, you who were dismayed but not surprised by President Biden's debate performance, bear in mind that's largely because you've been keeping up. You've heard many a verbal slip-up, you've seen his shuffling walk. But most voters aren't paying much attention. It's likely they haven't really seen him for maybe three or four years ago, back when he spoke more clearly and loped confidently onto a stage. They had to be shocked by the difference between then and now. And we're not talking about how much his manner and affect have deteriorated in the past four years; we're talking about how much his health will flag in the next five years. We nearly had one 25th Amendment crisis in 2021. In re-electing either Biden or Trump, we're asking for such a crisis to occur during the next presidential term.
Jill the Decider. Katie Rogers of the New York Times: “If [President] Biden were to seriously consider departing the race, allowing a younger candidate to replace him, the first lady would be the most important figure — other than the president himself — in reaching that decision.... Indeed, as major Democratic Party donors connected Friday, by text, by phone or in person, one of the most immediate questions they asked one another was whether any of them knew how to get a meeting or a conversation with the first lady.... In front of supporters on Friday, the first lady embraced the talking points espoused by Democratic Party leaders ... that Mr. Biden’s bad performance did not erase years of successful legislating.... [But] Suddenly, a first lady who had skirted major controversies over the past three and a half years found herself in the cross hairs of people who believe she has been trying to hide his diminished faculties.”
Erica Green, et al., of the New York Times: “Less than 24 hours after President Biden’s faltering performance at a debate in Atlanta, Vice President Kamala Harris was standing before a crowd of supporters in a crucial battleground state [Nevada] on Friday, defending his record and his fitness for office. But with Democrats openly discussing replacing Mr. Biden on the ticket, Ms. Harris was also effectively making a case for herself.... Although the prospect of removing Mr. Biden from the ticket remains far-fetched, Ms. Harris would most likely be one of a half-dozen candidates vying for the presidential nomination if Mr. Biden pulled out.... With the Biden campaign in crisis, there is a renewed focus on Ms. Harris as she tries to calm a panicking Democratic Party. On Friday in Nevada, she made her loyalty to Mr. Biden clear.”
Abha Bhattarai of the Washington Post: “In a fiery exchange during [the] presidential debate..., Donald Trump claimed that an influx of immigrants from the U.S.-Mexico border were 'taking Black jobs.' But economic data shows that Black workers are faring exceptionally well: The Black unemployment rate remains near historic lows and wage gains are at all-time highs. Meanwhile, the share of Black Americans with jobs — at 59.1 — is near a peak of 60.4 percent set last year. 'There is no indication anywhere that Black workers are losing out in this economy,' said Valerie Wilson, a labor economist at Economic Policy Institute Action.” ~~~
~~~ Marie: News flash for the President of the Confederacy there: slavery is kind of passe and even good old-fashioned racism is best left in Mitt Romney's "quiet rooms." So, at least officially, there are no longer any "Black jobs." ~~~
~~~ Matt Brown of the AP: “Donald Trump warned during his debate with Joe Biden and again at a Friday rally that migrants were taking 'Black jobs' and 'Hispanic jobs' from Americans, angering critics who called it a racist and insulting attempt to expand his appeal beyond his white conservative base.... 'There is no such thing as a Black job. That misinformed characterization is a denial of the ubiquity of Black talent. We are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, police officers and firefighters. The list goes on,' said Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP. 'A “Black job” is an American job....'”
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite: “President Joe Biden’s campaign hit back after a widely-panned debate performance by listing a whopping 50 'lies' ex-President Donald Trump 'told from the debate stage.'”
~~~ If you listen to Daniel Dale's critique, what you'll find is that not only did President Biden make far fewer porkies than Trump, Biden's misstatements were mostly in the realm of misremembering numbers -- e.g., $15 instead of $35 on the insulin cap he imposed -- whereas Trump's lies were whoppers; e.g., “We had the greatest economy in the history of our country. We have never done so well, and everybody was amazed by it.”
The Extreme Supremes Speak
Chief Justice Roberts announced that Monday would be the last day of the Court's term, so the grand poobahs will have to drop the last of their decisions, including a ruling on presidential* immunity.
Supremes Let Some Insurrectionists Skate. Ann Marimow of the Washington Post: “Federal prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday, upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election. After the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors charged more than 350 participants in the pro-Trump mob with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The charge carries a 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government must establish that a defendant 'impaired the availability or integrity' of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding. The decision returns the case to the lower courts for additional proceedings. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.” The NBC News report is here. (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ The opinion & dissent are here, via the Court. Marie: In case it slipped your notice, the husbands of insurrectionist cheerleaders Ginni & Martha-Ann were proud to sign on to the majority opinion cutting the insurrectionists a break. ~~~
~~~ January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences. The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. -- Attorney General Merrick Garland ~~~
~~~ Because of Course He Did. Irie Sentner of Politico: "... Donald Trump called on Friday for those arrested in connection to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol to be released, responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the day that prosecutors in at least one case improperly charged a defendant."
** Adam Liptak of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Friday reduced the authority of executive agencies, sweeping aside a longstanding legal precedent that required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress. The precedent, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is one of the most cited in American law. There have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts. The decision threatens regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along ideological lines. The conservative legal movement and business groups have long objected to the Chevron ruling, partly based on a general hostility to government regulation and partly based on the belief, grounded in the separation of powers, that agencies should have only the power that Congress has explicitly given them.” (Also linked yesterday.) The AP's report is here. ~~~
In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.... A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance [-- Chevron --] thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority. The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power. -- Elena Kagan, dissent ~~~
~~~ Ed Pilkington of the Guardian: “Elena Kagan issued a devastating dissent to the decision of her hard-right fellow supreme court justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine that has been a cornerstone of federal regulation for 40 years, accusing the majority of turning itself into'the country’s administrative czar'. Kagan was joined by her two fellow liberal-leaning justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in delivering a withering criticism of the actions of the ultra-right supermajority that was created by Donald Trump.” ~~~
~~~ The decision, concurrences & dissent, via the Court is here. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Too bad the case wasn't captioned Ignorant Hubris v. Expertise. Update: I just read Kagan's dissent; she wrote, "If opinions had titles, a good candidate for today’s would be Hubris Squared." Maybe you're thinking, oh, well, judges -- who will now be the interpreters of any potentially ambiguous statutory language -- are a kind of expert, too. Let me call your attention to a New York Times story also linked earlier today:
“Last year, the Supreme Court sharply restricted the federal government’s ability to limit pollution in small streams that sit dry for much of the year and fill up only after rainfall or snowmelt. Now, a new study ... estimates that 55 percent of the water flowing out of America’s river basins can be traced back to millions of ephemeral streams that flow only periodically. The findings suggest that the Supreme Court ruling, which rolled back protections for those streams, could leave large bodies of water vulnerable to pollution.” (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Elie Mystal, appearing on MSNBC Friday, said that in an opinion released yesterday, expert justice Neil Gorsuch mixed up nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and nitrogen oxides (environmental pollutants). And as Dahlia Lithwick, also on MSNBC, more or less put it yesterday, this is a "wholesale transfer" of regulatory power from the executive branch to the judiciary. Lithwick notes that this is the same Court that this week demonstrated it is so "expert" it can't even manage its own Website. ~~~
~~~ Matthew Daly of the AP: “Executive branch agencies will likely have more difficulty regulating the environment, public health, workplace safety and other issues under a far-reaching decision by the Supreme Court.... With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in. President Joe Biden’s administration, for example, has issued a host of new regulations on the environment and other priorities, including restrictions on emissions from power plants and vehicle tailpipes, and rules on student loan forgiveness, overtime pay and affordable housing. Those actions and others could be opened up to legal challenges if judges are allowed to discount or disregard the expertise of the executive-branch agencies that put them into place. With billions of dollars potentially at stake, groups representing the gun industry and other businesses such as tobacco, agriculture, timber and homebuilding, were among those pressing the justices to overturn the Chevron doctrine and weaken government regulation.”
~~~ Alex Guillén & Josh Gerstein of Politico: The decision's “fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.” (Also linked yesterday.)
Abbie VanSickle of the New York Times: “The Supreme Court on Friday upheld an Oregon city’s laws aimed at banning homeless residents from sleeping outdoors, saying they did not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling, by a 6-to-3 vote, split along ideological lines, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing for the majority. The laws, enacted in Grants Pass, Ore., penalize sleeping and camping in public places, including sidewalks, streets and city parks.” (Also linked yesterday.) The AP report is here. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Well, now, see, John Roberts does have a sense of humor. Assigning the Cruelest Justice to write an opinion criminalizing Being Without Shelter is kind of perfect.
It is a bad day for democracy and a threatening day for the rule of law. -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Member of the Judiciary Committee ~~~
~~~ Carl Hulse of the New York Times: “Democrats confronted a nightmare scenario on Friday as they surveyed the wreckage of major political, policy and legal disasters piled atop one another with elections for control of the White House and Congress less than five months away. Even as they reeled from President Biden’s poor performance on Thursday night in a make-or-break debate with ... Donald J. Trump, Democrats were slammed anew on Friday by the Supreme Court.... It was a day that encapsulated the party’s worst fears about the coming elections and the rightward tilt of the Supreme Court. And it drove home how Republicans and Mr. Trump are within reach of victory in November — putting them in position to achieve a host of policy objectives vehemently opposed by Democrats — even with a presumptive nominee who is a convicted felon and a party that has been in deep disarray and shown little ability to govern.”
Kate Zernike of the New York Times: Idaho resident Nicole Miller “needed an emergency abortion. Doctors ... put her on a plane.... 'I couldn’t comprehend: I’m standing in front of doctors who know exactly what to do and how to help and they’re refusing to do it,' Ms. Miller said in an interview.... On Thursday, the United States Supreme Court declined to decide whether states that ban abortions, like Idaho, must comply with a federal law that requires emergency room doctors to provide abortions necessary to protect the health of a pregnant woman. The justices sent the question back to the lower courts for trial, and in the meantime reinstated a lower-court order saying that the federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, did apply.... But doctors in Idaho and other states with near-total bans say that even with the renewed protection of federal law, they have little clarity about what medical emergencies are covered, and little reassurance that they will not face charges, jail time, large fines and loss of their medical licenses if they provide care a prosecutor says was not necessary.” ~~~
~~~ Marie: Yes But. All you people are failing to appreciate 17th-century English common law. (The linked article by Lynn Parramore, published May 2022, is an excellent read on the history of abortion: in his Dobbs opinion, striking down Roe v. Wade, “Alito ignores societal practices on a large scale.... Certainly, many lawmakers in England and America wanted to restrict abortion, but their reasons were often highly questionable, including concern about female immorality and the assumption that wombs and fetuses were male property. Journalist and academic Emily Bell writes on Twitter that the 17th century jurist whom Alito cites to bolster his position 'had at least two women executed for witchcraft and wrote a treatise supporting marital rape.' Some precedent!”)
Roni Rabin, et al., of the New York Times: “The Biden administration said this week that it opposed gender-affirming surgery for minors, the most explicit statement to date on the subject from a president who has been a staunch supporter of transgender rights. The White House announcement was sent to The New York Times on Wednesday in response to an article reporting that staff in the office of Adm. Rachel Levine, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, had urged an influential international transgender health organization to remove age minimums for surgery from its treatment guidelines for minors.”
National Crime Blotter
Wayne Parry of the AP: “New Jersey regulators will hold a hearing next month on whether two golf courses owned by ... Donald Trump should have their liquor licenses renewed following his felony convictions in May in New York.... The licenses for Trump golf courses in Colts Neck and Bedminster expire on Sunday. The state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control said Friday it is not renewing the licenses, but it is issuing temporary 90-day permits to allow them to continue serving alcohol until a hearing on the licenses is held on July 19 in Trenton. The hearing is scheduled for after Trump’s sentencing on July 11.... At issue is whether Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide payments of hush money to a porn star violate New Jersey’s prohibition on anyone holding a liquor license who has been convicted of a crime involving 'moral turpitude.'” MB: Oh, there's hardly a soul more turpitudious than Donald.
Supremes: “Lock Him Up.” John Fritze of CNN: “The Supreme Court on Friday rejected former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s effort to avoid prison while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction. The court dispensed with the case in a brief [MB: unsigned] order. There were no noted dissents.” (Also linked yesterday.)
Ry Rivard of Politico: “Federal prosecutors rested their case Friday against Sen. Bob Menendez [D-N.J.] and two men accused of bribing him as they began it — focusing on the fishy amounts of cash and gold bars they found in his home stuffed almost comically into bags, boots and jackets. Defense attorneys are expected to call their own witnesses and the trial is unlikely to end until mid-July.”
Annals of “Journalism,” Ctd. But the Emails! Aaron Davis, et al., of the Washington Post: When he was an executive at Rupert Murdoch's U.K. publishing business, William Lewis ordered technicians to delete some 30 million company emails. “Victims of phone hacking claim that those deletions were part of an effort to cover up executives’ awareness that Murdoch journalists had illegally obtained voicemails of thousands of people, including politicians, royals and even a murdered teenager.... A Washington Post review of documents and interviews with key players found that News International’s actions in response to the hacking scandal left some police investigators and IT workers concerned that the company was obstructing the investigation. Some now say their concerns have only grown with time.... Former British prime minister Gordon Brown, himself a victim of alleged hacking, last month urged ... Scotland Yard — to reopen its criminal investigation.... [Lewis] last year was named CEO and publisher of The Washington Post.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Iowa. Annie Gowen of the Washington Post: “Iowa’s Supreme Court on Friday allowed a six-week ban on abortion to take effect, one of the latest rulings to restrict abortion access since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision ending federal protections for the procedure. The measure restricts the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, the point when fetal cardiac activity can be detected.... The judges ruled 4-3 that the law — passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2023 — is constitutional, reversing a temporary restraining order put in place by a district court last year while allowing the ongoing litigation at that level can proceed.” (Also linked yesterday.)
Texas. David Goodman of the New York Times: “The Texas Supreme Court upheld a state law on Friday that bans gender-transition medical treatment for minors, overturning a lower-court ruling that had temporarily blocked the law and dealing a blow to parents of transgender children. The court, whose nine elected members are all Republicans, voted 8 to 1 in favor of allowing the law, which passed last year, to remain in effect. It bars doctors from prescribing certain medications to minors, like hormones and puberty blockers, and forbids them from performing certain surgical procedures, like mastectomies, on minors.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Share Article