The Ignoring-Foreign-Policy-Because-It’s-Terrifying Edition
COURTS DOING GOOD: This week we open with some good news, of judges protecting the rights of minorities and showing what a central bulwark for justice courts can be. We start with a federal judge in Texas who found that the state’s strict voter ID law, first passed in 2011, was passed with the intent to discriminate against minority voters and thus violated the Voting Rights Act. The court found that the bill was passed “at least in part because of its adverse effects” upon minority groups. The court noted that the GOP majority rejected amendments that would have allowed a wider range of photo IDs, while at the same time offering “no substance to the justifications . . . for the draconian terms of SB 14.” As the Times notes, “The finding of intentional discrimination could once again put Texas under federal supervision for years, making it the first state brought back into so-called preclearance since the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling.” Next, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal appeals court to hold that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Writing in concurrence, Judge Richard Posner fought against the judicial philosophy of “originalism”: “We should not leave the impression that we are merely the obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963– 1965), carrying out their wishes. We are not. We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.” Finally, in the Fourth Circuit, the court was forced to dismiss the case of a transgender student who sued his school for refusing to let him use the bathroom of his preference, after he graduated and thus mooted the case. (This sounds like bad news, and it is, but it has a silver lining. We’re getting there.) I’ll let my friend David Lebowitz explain the background:
As background for those who aren’t familiar with this case, the Fourth Circuit last year held that Gavin Grimm, a transgender boy, was entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing his school district in Virginia from enforcing a policy banning him from boys’ bathrooms, thus forcing him to use only single-person bathrooms at school or else wait until he was at home to use the toilet. The opinion relied on federal Department of Education guidance issued under the Obama administration, which interpreted Title IX to prohibit policies like the one put in place by Gavin’s school district, which was implemented at a public meeting where his pleas for compassion and recognition were ignored in favor of bigoted fear-mongering.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but then Trump’s Department of Education revoked the Obama-era rule that the Fourth Circuit had relied on, and so the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit. Because Gavin is a senior about to graduate, the court formally revoked the injunction and dismissed the case. So all of this is insanely frustrating and disheartening, and I know I promised you good news. Well, Judge Andre Davis wrote a stirringly beautiful opinion commenting on the injustice of the case. It’s only 3 pages long, so you should read it. It really is a beautiful piece of writing, and a reminder of the power of courts and the law to enforce dignity, equality, and fairness to those whom the rest of society so often seeks to oppress. Here’s a highlight:
Our country has a long and ignominious history of discriminating against our most vulnerable and powerless. We have an equally long history, however, of brave individuals—Dred Scott, Fred Korematsu, Linda Brown, Mildred and Richard Loving, Edie Windsor, and Jim Obergefell, to name just a few—who refused to accept quietly the injustices that were perpetuated against them. It is unsurprising, of course, that the burden of confronting and remedying injustice falls on the shoulders of the oppressed. These individuals looked to the federal courts to vindicate their claims to human dignity, but as the names listed above make clear, the judiciary’s response has been decidedly mixed. Today, G.G. adds his name to the list of plaintiffs whose struggle for justice has been delayed and rebuffed; as Dr. King reminded us, however, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” G.G.’s journey is delayed but not finished.
Boom.
ZOMBIE TRUMPCARE RISES FROM THE DEAD?: In a sudden about-face with no real explanation, Trump declared this week that he was committed, once again, to getting healthcare “reform” done before moving on to tax cuts, reversing his position after Trumpcare went down to ignominious defeat last month. His new strategy, it seems, is to try to deliberately destroy the Obamacare insurance markets, which he thinks will force Democrats to come to the negotiating table. So this week, he insisted that HHS announce that it would not necessarily continue making payments to insurance companies to subsidies low-income customers, just one day after HHS told the Times that it would continue those payments. Apparently unsure how this whole “we can hear you when you speak out loud” thing works, Trump laid out his strategy to the Wall Street Journal: “Obamacare is dead next month if it doesn’t get that money. I haven’t made my viewpoint clear yet. I don’t want people to get hurt … What I think should happen and will happen is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.” This is an odd strategy, given that the intentional destruction of Obamacare will only redound to the benefit of Democrats. As Chait puts it, “Trump is threatening Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to meet his demands or else he will give them a majority in Congress.” But really, whatever Trump thinks about Obamacare, Trumpcare is very much dead: Rep. Charlie Dent, an influential member of the “moderate” Republican caucus in the House, told reporters on Tuesday that they did not want to pass a Republican-only healthcare bill, admitting that the GOP would “need to start over” on their healthcare plans. As long as the moderates are running scared of repealing Obamacare entirely--and they’re scared because their constituents are up in arms (I see you, Mike Coffman)--the law remains safe.
SESSIONS’ PATH OF DESTRUCTION: Today there were a spate of stories about how Trump is “moderating,” shutting out the Bannons of his team and turning toward the “moderates” like Gary Cohn. Do not believe these stories. Bannon may be on his way out**, but the most destructive Attorney General in modern American history is just getting started—and his initial moves have been terrifying and awful and must not be ignored. Just in the last two weeks, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has announced that he will “review” all DOJ’s consent decrees with police departments around the country. “In a two-page memo released Monday, Sessions said agreements reached previously between the department’s civil rights division and local police departments—a key legacy of the Obama administration—will be subject to review by his two top deputies, throwing into question whether all of the agreements will stay in place.” As Radley Balko points out, the worst consequence of this is Sessions’ decree that the DOJ will essentially no longer investigate and issue reports on civil rights abuses by police departments. But these reports serve essential functions: “The Justice Department reports on police abuse in Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson and Cleveland weren’t just damning and outrageous, they gave voice to what minority communities in those cities have been saying for years. They created a record. They legitimized the abuses of marginalized people who never had the platform to be heard.” Sessions has also announced his intention to revive the war on drugs, and has specifically compared marijuana to heroin. He has hired a committed drug warrior to be his right-hand man; as the Post reports, “The two men are eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and ’90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration.” (Note that even as Sessions salivates over fighting “urban” crime with increased drug prosecution, the White House has appointed Chris Christie to lead a fight to help solve the opioid crisis—through, obviously, therapy and other non-punitive means. Gee, I wonder what could possibly account for the difference in strategies?) Finally, and most disgustingly and almost shockingly cruelly, Sessions has abruptly terminated a “Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question.” This is a group of experts trying to tamp down on the junk science that has sent thousands of people to prison. Sessions simply refuses to engage with this panel’s work, which in a 2009 report determined that literally thousands of prosecutions have rested on scientifically dubious practices, like bitemark evidence and handwriting analysis. “I don’t think we should suggest that those proven scientific principles that we’ve been using for decades are somehow uncertain and leaving prosecutors having to fend off challenges on the most basic issues in a trial,” Sessions said. Of course, the upshot of this examination was to show these “principles” are far from “proven.” “[T]he department has literally decided to suspend the search for the truth,” said Peter S. Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has reported that nearly half of 349 DNA exonerations involved misapplications of forensic science. “As a consequence innocent people will languish in prison or, God forbid, could be executed.” So, that’s great.
** “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.” OUCH.
DEMOCRATS SHOWING POTENTIAL HOUSE STRENGTH: This week, one of the nation’s most conservative House districts, in Kansas, faced a special election to replace Rep. Mike Pompeo, who is now Trump’s CIA director. In November, Trump won the district by over 27 points. This week, the Republican won by only 7. Given that the DCCC spent literally $0 on the Kansas race (judging it impossible to win, given its supremely conservative bent), the surprisingly close race augers well for the midterms -- and for some additional special elections coming up, starting with next week’s race in the Atlanta suburbs. There, 30-year-old Democrat Jon Ossoff has raised a staggering $8 million, and he is virtually guaranteed a spot in the runoff in June. The question will be whether we can surpass 50% on Tuesday, foreclosing the need for a runoff, in a race against 17 Republican challengers. And a populist Berniecrat is running a surprisingly compelling campaign in Montana, to fill the seat vacated by our new Interior Secretary. I want to go back to Kansas though to end with this observation from Charles Pierce, commenting on the instant post-game sniping of “Berniecrat” Democrats, angry that the DCCC didn’t spend in the race at the “establishment” wing of the party:
What happened in Kansas should be an occasion for unalloyed celebration. There are good arguments to be made that had the Democratic National Committee come tromping into that district with both feet, it would have done more harm than good. Leaving things to local activists, augmented by boots on the phone from all around the country, was a very sensible strategy. And it almost worked in a district so ridiculously conservative that one of the Koch brothers actually lives there. The impulse within some progressives to skunk up the garden party is a wonder to behold. Truly, it is.
If you know anyone in the Atlanta suburbs, or in Montana, urge them to VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE.
#HEADDESK MOMENT OF THE WEEK: We could also call this “The Donald J. Trump Story recounted in one quote”:
He said they hit it off during their first discussion. Mr. Trump said he told his Chinese counterpart he believed Beijing could easily take care of the North Korea threat. Mr. Xi then explained the history of China and Korea, Mr. Trump said.
“After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it’s not so easy,” Mr. Trump recounted. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power” over North Korea,” he said. “But it’s not what you would think.”
Best Video of the Week: Rachel dives into Sean Spicer’s shocking (and sometimes hilarious) incompetence, culminating in this week’s epic 4-part forgetting-the-Holocaust gaffe.
Bonus Videoish of the Week: The Spicer Holocaust story is not complete without this amazing 10 second GIF of reporter Ashley Parker reacting to Spicer’s word salad in real time.
But Also Don’t You Dare Miss: Alexandra Petri on Spicer’s multi-part attempt to walk back his Hitler comparisons. Seriously, this is one of my favorite Petri columns ever.
Must Read of the Week: Budget director Mick Mulvaney exposes the GOP’s actual priority: maintaining (or expanding) income inequality.
#BothSides-ism Is Stupid: Part 1,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment