More stories

  • in

    Can the Democrats turn the tables on Trump in supreme court battle?

    Hard numbers suggest that the fight over the nomination of the conservative Catholic judge Amy Coney Barrett to the US supreme court is over before it begins. The 53-47 Republican majority in the Senate is solidly in favour of Donald Trump’s preferred replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg – and according to the constitution, it is the Senate, not the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, that decides. There appears to be little the Democrats can do. But is that true? Get out the votePolls show most voters believe Ginsburg’s replacement should be selected by whoever wins the White House, with independent (uncommitted) voters especially strongly opposed to a rushed process.A Washington Post-ABC News survey found a 58-37% split in favour of delay among all adults. If Republicans defy public opinion and push through a final vote before the 3 November election, Democrats may begin to pick up critical support in several tight Senate contests. In such a scenario, the GOP may delay the final Senate vote until after the election. And if, as seems likely, the election result is itself disputed (and goes to the supreme court for a ruling, as in 2000), politics will freeze – and almost anything could happen. Another worry for Trump: 64% of Democrat voters say the prospect of a reinforced conservative supreme court majority has made it “more important” that Joe Biden wins, as against 37% of Republicans who say the same for Trump. The president is already in trouble with non-religious white suburban women voters, many of whom view him as a misogynist hostile to women’s rights, such as abortion. By energising such opposition, the nomination could backfire on Trump. Change the rulesEven if Barrett’s nomination is confirmed, the Democrats may pursue a number of reforms, without reference to the Supreme Court, that could prevent the Republicans manipulating the electoral system (and thus judicial appointments) in future – and retroactively redress the court’s political balance. One such reform would be a strengthening of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to ensure universal registration and to stop partisan congressional redistricting and vote suppression practices that discourage voting by ethnic minorities in poorer, pro-Democrat areas. Another badly needed measure is an overhaul of the outdated voting system itself, for example to avoid future controversies over postal voting, currently being exploited by Trump. Big snag: in order to implement these and similar measures, the Democrats would need majorities in both houses of Congress, and control of the White House. But proponents say that if that outcome is achieved in November, there must be no hesitation. Democrats, they say, must learn to be as ruthless as their opponents. Move the goalpostsMore radical proposals under discussion include action by a Biden presidency to expand the supreme court bench from the current nine justices to 11, which could go some way towards mitigating the prospective 6-3 conservative majority (assuming Judge Barrett is confirmed). Even more dramatic is a proposal to grant statehood to the District of Columbia, which includes the city of Washington, and to the “unincorporated territory” of Puerto Rico. The disenfranchised African-American and Latino majority in Washington DC has long campaigned for statehood, viewing its denial as discriminatory. With 3.2 million inhabitants, Puerto Rico is more populous than 20 mostly Republican-voting rural states. If both acquired statehood, the 100-seat Senate would gain four, most likely Democrat senators. More

  • in

    Trump First now drives US foreign policy. Even if it leads to war… | Simon Tisdall

    It’s clear Donald Trump will do almost anything to cling to office. Lie about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish? Go for it. Label Joe Biden a radical socialist? Silly, but worth a punt. Start a war with China or Iran? Pause right there. This is not beyond the realms of possibility, given his pathological need to win.As November’s poll nears, Trump is weaponising foreign policy – not to defend US security and national interests, but to help him grab a second term. It’s not about putting “America First”. It’s all about putting “Trump First” – by any dangerous means, and at any cost.Trump has no big international successes to his name. On the contrary, he has trashed America’s global reputation and alienated its friends. His North Korea jamboree was all hot air. His Afghan policy is retreat without honour. Israel’s shabby deals with Gulf dictatorships, stitched up by the White House, undermine the quest for Middle East peace.Scornful of traditional diplomacy and lacking significant achievements, Trump chooses confrontation. He exploits visceral fears, just like he does when campaigning at home: fear of nefarious foreign foes, fear of the other, fear of difference.His China-baiting at the UN last week was typical scaremongering. He characterised the pandemic as a global war triggered by Beijing. Covid-19 was the “invisible enemy”, a “plague” and the “China virus” – terms intended to frighten and divide. Just in case Xi Jinping and the other watching Johnny Foreigners did not get the message, the US, he said, had spent $2.5tn on defence since 2016. “We have the most powerful military anywhere in the world.”Was this a threat? Maybe the entire planet should put its hands up and surrender. More

  • in

    Amid talk of civil war, America is already split – Trump Nation has seceded | Robert Reich

    What is America really fighting over in the upcoming election? Not any particular issue. Not even Democrats versus Republicans. The central fight is over Donald J Trump.Before Trump, most Americans weren’t especially passionate about politics. But Trump’s MO has been to force people to become passionate about him – to take fierce sides for or against. And he considers himself president only of the former, whom he calls “my people”.Trump came to office with no agenda except to feed his monstrous ego. He has never fueled his base. His base has fueled him. Its adoration sustains him.So does the antipathy of his detractors. Presidents usually try to appease their critics. Trump has gone out of his way to offend them. “I do bring rage out,” he unapologetically told Bob Woodward in 2016.In this way, he has turned America into a gargantuan projection of his own pathological narcissism.To Trump and his core enablers and supporters, the laws of Trump Nation authorize him to do whatever he wantsHis entire re-election platform is found in his use of the pronouns “we” and “them”. “We” are people who love him, Trump Nation. “They” hate him.In late August, near the end of a somnolent address on the South Lawn of the White House, accepting the Republican nomination, Trump extemporized: “The fact is, we’re here – and they’re not.” It drew a standing ovation.At a recent White House news conference, a CNN correspondent asked if Trump condemned the behavior of his supporters in Portland, Oregon. In response, he charged: “Your supporters, and they are your supporters indeed, shot a young gentleman.”In Trump’s eyes, CNN exists in a different country: Anti-Trump Nation.So do the putative rioters and looters of “Biden’s America”. So do the inhabitants of blue states whose state and local tax deductions Trump eliminated. So do those who live in the “Democrat cities”, as he calls them, whose funding he’s trying to cut.California is a big part of Anti-Trump Nation. He wanted to reject its request for aid to battle wildfires “because he was so rageful that people in the state of California didn’t support him”, said former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor.New York is the capital of Anti-Trump Nation, which probably contributed to Trump “playing down” the threat of Covid-19 last March, when its virulence seemed largely confined to that metropolis. Even now, Trump claims the US rate of Covid-19 deaths would be low “if you take the blue states out”. That’s untrue, but it’s not the point. For Trump, blue states don’t count because they’re Anti-Trump Nation.To Trump and his core enablers and supporters, the laws of Trump Nation authorize him to do whatever he wants. Anti-Trump Nation’s laws constrain him, but they’re illegitimate because they are made and enforced by the people who reject him.If he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump NationSo Trump’s call to the president of Ukraine seeking help with the election was “perfect”. It was fine for Russia to side with him in 2016, and it’s fine for it to do so again. And of course the justice department, postal service and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should help him win re-election. They’re all aiding Trump Nation.By a similar twisted logic, Anti-Trump Nation is dangerous. Hence, says Trump, the armed teenager who killed two in Kenosha, Wisconsin, acted in “self-defense”, yet the suspected killer of a rightwinger in Portland deserved the “retribution” he got when federal marshals killed him.It follows that if he loses the election, Trump will not accept the result because it would be the product of Anti-Trump Nation, and Trump isn’t the president of people who would vote against him. As he recently claimed, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”In the warped minds of Trump and his acolytes, this could lead to civil war. Just this week he refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power. His consigliere Roger Stone urges him to declare “martial law” if he loses. Michael Caputo, assistant secretary of public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services, warns “the shooting will begin” when Trump refuses to go.Civil war is unlikely, but the weeks and perhaps months after election day will surely be fraught. Even if Trump is ultimately forced to relinquish power, his core adherents will continue to view him as their leader. If he retains power, many if not most Americans will consider his presidency illegitimate.So whatever happens, Trump’s megalomaniacal ego will prevail. America will have come apart over him, and Trump Nation will have seceded from Anti-Trump Nation. More

  • in

    Who is Amy Coney Barrett? Trump's anti-abortion supreme court nominee

    Subject to confirmation by the Senate, Amy Coney Barrett will be the youngest justice on the US supreme court, a position from which she will be set to influence American life for decades yet to come.Donald Trump’s nomination of the 48-year-old comes two years after her name surfaced as a possible replacement for the retiring Anthony Kennedy, whose seat was ultimately filled by Brett Kavanaugh after contentious confirmation hearings.Republicans want Barrett confirmed before the presidential election, on 3 November. Democrats lack the power to block her but the process is likely to be no less contentious than that which Kavanaugh survived.To the fore is Barrett’s religious faith, prominently her association with People of Praise, a charismatic Christian group with what is described as an authoritarian internal structure.Arguments from both political factions have been publicly rehearsed: will Barrett’s religious convictions affect her performance as a supreme court justice, or should they have nothing to do with determining her fitness for such an important role?Conservatives argue public questions about religious beliefs should be excluded. Liberals suggest Barrett’s beliefs could overshadow her ability to administer unconflicted jurisprudence on issues such as abortion and contraception, thereby threatening foundational values of religious liberty.Barrett clerked for the late conservative justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The gravest threat Barrett poses, according to many on the left, is to Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that ensured abortion rights.In 2017, Trump nominated the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law School graduate to the Chicago-based seventh US circuit court of appeals.Answering a White House questionnaire, the mother of seven – who adopted two children from Haiti – said she admired justice Elena Kagan, an Obama-appointed abortion rights supporter, for bringing “the knowledge and skill she acquired as an academic to the practical resolution of disputes”.But during her confirmation hearing, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein memorably said Barrett had “a long history of believing that your religious beliefs should prevail” and added”: “The dogma lives loudly in you.”Barrett has said she is a “faithful Catholic” but her religious beliefs do not “bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge”. She has also said legal careers ought not to be seen as means of gaining satisfaction, prestige or money, but rather “as a means to the end of serving God”.People of Praise, the group to which Barrett belongs, emerged out of the revivalist movement of the 1960s, which blended Catholicism and Protestant Pentecostalism. Founded in South Bend, Indiana, in 1971 and with 1,700 members, the group describes itself as a community that “support[s] each other financially and materially and spiritually”.“Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment,” it says on its website. “Members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches.”There’s nothing particularly extreme about People of Praise – other than women are not given senior positionsWilliam CashOn Saturday William Cash, chairman of the Catholic Herald, told the Guardian members of People of Praise were on “the conservative side of the church and are unlikely to be the sort of progressives who are fanatical about Pope Francis”.“There’s nothing particularly extreme about People of Praise – other than it is very hierarchical and women are not given senior positions,” he said.The former reporter saw questions about Barrett’s Catholicism and the supreme court in the context of the White House race.“Not only is Biden Catholic, albeit in a very liberal way that will alienate many ‘trads’,” Cash said, “but Melania Trump is also a practicing Catholic and has even had a private audience with Pope Francis in Rome, describing it as one of the most important moments of her life. So Melania, Amy Coney Barrett and Biden are from opposite poles of the US Catholic planet.”Former members of People of Praise and religious scholars have described an organization that appears to dominate some members’ everyday lives, in which so-called “heads”, or spiritual advisers, oversee major decisions. Married women count their husbands as their “heads” and members are expected to tithe 5% of their income to the organization.According to a former member, Adrian Reimers, “all one’s decisions and dealings become the concern of one’s ‘head’, and in turn potentially become known to the leadership”.Heidi Schlumpf, a national correspondent for National Catholic Reporter, called the group’s level of secrecy “concerning”.Trump may sense in Barrett’s nomination a last chance to energise religious conservatives in his race for re-election. The president met evangelical leaders at the White House before introducing Barrett to the press.In 2012, as a professor at Notre Dame, Barrett signed a letter attacking a provision of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare reform known as Obamacare, that forced insurance companies to offer coverage for contraception, a facet of the law later modified for religious institutions.Republican attempts to bring down the ACA have repeatedly fallen short. If Barrett is confirmed before the November election, one of her first cases shortly after it could determine its fate. More