The Conversation -- June 28, 2024
In North Carolina Friday, President Biden addressed his debate performance:
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."
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."
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." ~~~
~~~ 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."
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. ~~~
~~~ The opinion & dissent are here, via the Court. Marie: I see where the husbands of insurrectionist cheerleaders Ginni & Martha-Ann were proud to sign on to the majority opinion cutting the insurrectionists a break.
** 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." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Too bad the case wasn't captioned Ignorant Hubris v. Expertise. 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." ~~~
~~~ 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).
~~~ 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."
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." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Well, now, see, John Roberts does have a sense of humor. Assigning the Cruelest Justice to write an opinion outlawing Being Without Shelter is kind of perfect.
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."
~~~~~~~~~~
Presidential Race
Always look on the bright side. We no longer have to worry about Trump's claiming the election was rigged and leading another bloody coup attempt. So, you know, saving the appearance of democracy. For a little while. -- Marie
Two Words: Brokered Convention. Release your delegates, Joe.
Peter Baker of the New York Times: President Biden's "halting and disjointed performance on Thursday night prompted a wave of panic among Democrats and reopened discussion of whether he should be the nominee at all. Over the course of 90 minutes, a raspy-voiced Mr. Biden struggled to deliver his lines and counter a sharp though deeply dishonest ... Donald J. Trump, raising doubts about the incumbent president's ability to wage a vigorous and competitive campaign four months before the election. Rather than dispel concerns about his age, Mr. Biden, 81, made it the central issue. Democrats who have defended the president for months against his doubters — including members of his own administration -- traded frenzied phone calls and text messages within minutes of the start of the debate as it became clear that Mr. Biden was not at his sharpest. Practically in despair, some took to social media to express shock, while others privately discussed among themselves whether it was too late to persuade the president to step aside in favor of a younger candidate. 'Biden is about to face a crescendo of calls to step aside,' said a veteran Democratic strategist who has staunchly backed Mr. Biden publicly. 'Joe had a deep well of affection among Democrats. It has run dry.'
"Mr. Trump, 78, appeared to coast through the debate with little trouble, rattling off one falsehood after another without being effectively challenged. He appeared confident while avoiding the excessively overbearing demeanor that had damaged him during his first debate with Mr. Biden in 2020, seemingly content to let his opponent stew in his own difficulties. While Mr. Trump at times rambled and offered statements that were convoluted, hard to follow and flatly untrue, he did so with energy and volume that covered up his misstatements, managing to stay on offense even on issues of vulnerability for him like the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and abortion."
Ashley Parker of the Washington Post: "One thing was clear by the end of the first 2024 presidential faceoff: Democrats were in a panic following [President] Biden's halting debate night performance. Their consternation encompassed the halls of Congress, the moneyed coastal cities of donors, the party strongholds across the country and the bars and living rooms where Democratic stalwarts gathered to cheer on their guy.... [Biden's] voice was soft and raspy, and he repeatedly tried, and failed, to clear his throat. His answers, at times, were rambling, and at one point he froze up. At another, he began an answer on abortion, before suddenly segueing into immigration. When Trump spoke, Biden often watched with his mouth agape and eyes flared wide -- a split screen that gave off the impression of the aging grandfather that he is, not the swashbuckling leader he hoped to project."
Lisa Kashinsky, et al., of Politico: "The alarm bells for Democrats started ringing the second [President] Biden started speaking in a haltingly hoarse voice. Minutes into the debate, he struggled to mount an effective defense of the economy on his watch and flubbed the description of key health initiatives he's made central to his reelection bid, saying 'we finally beat Medicare' and incorrectly stating how much his administration lowered the price of insulin. He talked himself into a corner on Afghanistan, bringing up his administration's botched withdrawal unprompted. He repeatedly mixed up 'billion' and 'million,' and found himself stuck for long stretches of the 90-minute debate playing defense."
Elena Schneider, et al., of Politico: "One major Democratic donor and Biden supporter said it was time for the president to end his campaign. This person described Biden's night as 'the worst performance in history' and said Biden was so 'bad that no one will pay attention to Trump's lies.'"
When you drive a person to agree with Tom Friedman, Joe, it's time to go: ~~~
~~~ Tom Friedman of the New York Times: "I watched the Biden-Trump debate alone in a Lisbon hotel room, and it made me weep. I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime -- precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election. And Donald Trump, a malicious man and a petty president, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. He is the same fire hose of lies he always was, obsessed with his grievances -- nowhere close to what it will take for America to lead in the 21st century. The Biden family and political team must gather quickly and have the hardest of conversations with the president, a conversation of love and clarity and resolve. To give America the greatest shot possible of deterring the Trump threat in November, the president has to come forward and declare that he will not be running for re-election and is releasing all of his delegates for the Democratic National Convention."
Here are New York Times reporters' live updates of the presidential debate. The page also contains a livefeed of the debate. MB: Trump approached the podium looking very, very grumpy. Anyway, here are a very few of the many, many reporters' observations. I am so-o-o-o glad I'm not listening to this, because the reporters are diplomatically suggesting Biden's performance is a disaster and Trump -- lying about everything -- sounds great! ~~~
Alan Rappeport: "Biden, speaking quickly, argued that Trump left him with an economy in shambles and that he had created jobs and was bringing down the cost of prescription drugs."
Adam Nagourney: "... Biden comes out of the box going after Trump: 'Things were in chaos.' No time for preliminaries tonight."
Jess Bidgood: "Trump blames the Covid pandemic for undoing gains under his leadership, then blames Biden for inflation."
Rappeport: "Trump says that his tax cuts 'spurred the greatest economy that we'd ever seen' and argues that he was ready to start paying down debt. A nonpartisan report this week showed that Trump racked up about twice as much debt as Biden in his term."
Katie Rogers: "Trump is fiery tonight and went straight into attacking the president on immigration. The moderators are trying to bring the questioning back to the economy. So far, Trump is pretty much talking about what he wants to talk about...."
Reid Epstein: "Biden appeared to just lose his train of thought, concluding with 'we finally beat Medicare.' Trump immediately pounced: 'He did beat Medicare, he beat it to death.'"
Shawn Hubler: "In Sacramento, where some 40 Democrats have gathered at a union hall for a watch party, the mood has wavered for most of the debate between mild panic and grim despair."
Rappeport: "The debate took a deeply personal turn over the last 15 minutes. Biden hit Trump for being a felon, laid into him for his legal problems. Trump responded by bringing up Biden's son Hunter, and calling him a criminal. Then things got uglier, when Biden dug into Trump for his alleged relationship with Stormy Daniels, accusing him of having sex with a porn star while his wife was pregnant. Trump rebutted that with a response that has never been heard in a presidential debate: 'I didn't have sex with a porn star.' Trump, angered by the exchange, said that Biden was the 'worst president in the history of our country.'"
David Goodman: "The mood at Christian's Tailgate, a Houston bar where more than 100 mostly young Republicans gathered for a watch party, was festive and confident: Scores jeered Biden's every verbal stumble and cheered each time Trump brought up immigration."
Zolan Kanno-Youngs: "This is the best Biden has sounded so far as he defends the reputation of the United States and talks about the need for a child tax credit. He sounds more coherent and clear."
Rogers: "These last minutes of this debate feel a little surreal. Topics: Golf handicaps. Indictments. Dueling presidencies. World War III. Voters were very unhappy with their choices going into this debate and it's hard to imagine that this was a reassuring 90 minutes."
Hamed Aleaziz of the New York Times: "The Biden administration plans to protect from deportation around 300,000 Haitians and allow them to work in the country, according to three people with knowledge of the matter, the latest move to shield immigrants from returning to countries in dire conditions. The administration's plan would make Haitians who arrived after November 2022 and before early June eligible for temporary protected status...."
National Crime Blotter
Alan Feuer of the New York Times: "The federal judge overseeing ... Donald J. Trump's classified documents case said on Thursday that she intended to look anew at a hugely consequential legal victory that prosecutors won last year and that served as a cornerstone of the obstruction charges filed against Mr. Trump. In her ruling, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, said she would hold a hearing to reconsider another judge's decision to allow prosecutors to pierce the attorney-client privilege of one of Mr. Trump's lawyers under what is known as the crime-fraud exception. That provision allows the government to get around the normal protections afforded to a lawyer's communications with a client if it can prove that legal advice was used to commit a crime. Depending on how Judge Cannon ultimately rules, her decision to redo the fraught and lengthy legal arguments about the crime-fraud exception could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges in the indictment of Mr. Trump." (Also linked yesterday.) ~~~
~~~ Marie: Let me say this about that. That "other judge" who ruled that the crime-fraud exception applied was Beryl A. Howell, then Washington's chief federal judge; IOW, one of the top jurists in the nation. Howell has had a long, varied and distinguished career in law and government. And Little Miss Aileen is planning to overrule her. ~~~
~~~ Devlin Barrett & Perry Stein of the Washington Post: "U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon said Thursday that she will hold a hearing for Donald Trump's lawyers to challenge some of the evidence gathered against him for alleged mishandling of classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them. In an 11-page order, the judge said that 'further factual development is warranted' when it comes to Trump's challenge to the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago.... FBI agents searched his home on Aug. 8, 2022, finding 103 classified documents that eventually led to his indictment."
Salvador Rizzo, et al., of the Washington Post: "After years of Justice Department efforts to bring the WikiLeaks founder [Julian Assange] to the United States to stand trial, the near-collapse of the case in a British court sent prosecutors hurtling toward a plea deal."
Steve LeBlanc & Holly Ramer of the AP: "A New Hampshire man charged with threatening the lives of presidential candidates last year has been found dead while a jury was deciding his verdict, according to court filings Thursday. The jury began weighing the case against Tyler Anderson, 30, of Dover on Tuesday after a trial that began Monday. Police in Concord, New Hampshire, were asked to help search for Anderson after he failed to show up for court and eventually located a car in a garage at Concord Hospital at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, according to Deputy Chief John Thomas."
What Are the Extreme Supremes Doing Now?
Ann Marimow & Dan Diamond of the Washington Post: "Hospitals in Idaho that receive federal funds must allow emergency abortion care to stabilize patients even though the state strictly bans the procedure, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, one day after the opinion was prematurely posted on its website. The court's unsigned, 6-3 decision does not address the substance of the case. Instead, while litigation in the matter continues, the justices temporarily reinstated a lower-court ruling that had allowed hospitals to perform emergency abortions without being subject to prosecution under Idaho's abortion ban." This is an update of a story linked yesterday. Since the content of the leaked document apparently is just like that of the official decision and dissents, you'll find discussion in Thursday's and Wednesday's Conversations.
Justin Jouvenal, et al., of the Washington Post: "A divided Supreme Court on Thursday invalidated the Securities and Exchange Commission's use of in-house legal proceedings to discipline those it believes have committed fraud -- a blow to the federal agency in one of several cases this term challenging the power of the executive branch. Like other agencies, the SEC sometimes relies on internal tribunals with administrative law judges, rather than federal courts, to bring enforcement actions in securities fraud cases or other matters. In a 6-3 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the court said the SEC's reliance on internal tribunals, rather than federal courts, to bring enforcement actions in securities fraud cases violates the Constitution. The case is the latest in a string of rulings by the high court paring back the powers of the administrative state." This is an update of a report linked yesterday.
David Ovalle & Justin Jouvenal of the Washington Post: "A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation's opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.... In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal." This is an update of a report linked yesterday.
Justin Jouvenal of the Washington Post: "The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air quality on Thursday, putting on hold a major initiative to improve public health by reducing smog-forming pollution from power plants and factories that blows across state lines. The decision is the third time in as many years that the court's conservative majority has sharply curtailed the EPA's power to regulate pollution, following rulings in 2022 and 2023 that targeted the agency's ability to limit greenhouse gases and protect wetlands from runoff. In this year's case, a divided court sided 5-4 with states, trade associations and companies that asked for a pause on the agency's ambitious 'good neighbor' plan as they challenge it in a lower court. The way the decision was made was notable: The justices took up the case on an emergency basis while it is still playing out in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Usually, the high court waits for proceedings to finish in lower courts before taking up such challenges. That move angered liberal justices and environmentalists, who questioned what was so urgent when the regulations do not go into effect until mid-2026." (Also linked yesterday.)
Who Could Have Known?? Brad Plumer of the New York Times: "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 finds that those bodies, so-called ephemeral streams, are significantly more important to the nation's waterways than often appreciated. The research, published Thursday in the journal Science, 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."
~~~~~~~~~~
Arizona. Yvonne Sanchez & Azi Paybarah of the Washington Post: "This week, video emerged that showed [Shelby] Busch [-- chair of Arizona's delegation to the Republican convention --] saying she would 'lynch' the official who helps oversee elections in Maricopa County: Stephen Richer, a fellow Republican [who is Jewish]."
Oklahoma. Sarah Mervosh of the New York Times: "Oklahoma's state superintendent on Thursday directed all public schools to teach the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, in an extraordinary move that blurs the lines between religious instruction and public education. The superintendent, Ryan Walters, who is a Republican, described the Bible as an 'indispensable historical and cultural touchstone' and said it must be taught in certain grade levels.... Mr. Walters, a former history teacher who served in the cabinet of Gov. Kevin Stitt [R] before being elected state superintendent in 2022, has emerged as a lightning rod of conservative politics in Oklahoma and an unapologetic culture warrior in education.... Stacey Woolley, the president of the school board for Tulsa Public Schools, which Mr. Walters has threatened to take over, said she had not received specific instructions on the curriculum, but believed it would be 'inappropriate' to teach students of various faiths and backgrounds excerpts from the Bible alone, without also including other religious texts." (Also linked yesterday.)
Texas. David Goodman & Edgar Sandoval of the New York Times: "Pete Arredondo, the former chief of the school district police in Uvalde, Texas, was indicted and arrested over his actions during the police response to the 2022 school shooting in which a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers, the Uvalde County sheriff said on Thursday. 'Mr. Arredondo is currently in our custody,' the sheriff, Ruben Nolasco, said in a text message, adding that Mr. Arredondo was being held on the charge of 'abandoning/endangering of a child.' The indictment, which comes more than two years after the May 24 massacre at Robb Elementary School, is the first set of criminal charges stemming from the shooting and suggests failures in the police response beyond poor decision-making. A second former officer was also indicted over his actions that day, according to two people briefed on the grand jury's decision but who requested anonymity to share the findings before they were made public. The second officer, who worked under Mr. Arredondo at the school Police Department, was not in custody as of Thursday evening...."
Share Article
Reader Comments (14)
Wimpy Winkes steeled himself to watch ten minutes of the debate but couldn't tolerate it any longer and turned it off. The Pretender bared his neck time and again, inviting Biden's attacks and the poor old man just couldn't do it. It was a very painful ten minutes for me and I fear that as a result, there will be four more years of far greater pain for the country.
The Pretender has only one main lie (immigration causes all our problems) and three or so smaller ones that he bases his entire appeal on. How Biden could not be well prepared to counter them and expose the liar for the steaming pile of crap he is, I do not understand.
In those painful ten minutes, I fed Biden line after devastating line....but he apparently couldn't hear me.
As I told my granddaughter last night, Biden's aged performance had to bring to the fore the scary prospect of a woman president that has been lurking in the Right's hindbrain since HRC's 2016 run....Didn't mention it to her but added to myself....if not since 1984 and Ferraro...
I muted every time Fatso opened his mouth, after the first several minutes. I am heartbroken for Joe Biden but voting for the tub of lard is not an option. The pages and pages of lies issuing from that flabby mouth were the usual firehose, untouched by the moderators. This is a disgusting crisis of ultra mistakes and lies. Where was the Joe of the Waffle House?? He was funny and alert there and Jill was manic. Turned off the entire thing very soon after-- what to do now???
Had Fatty done poorly, the excuses were all ready and waiting, and normally I’d say that this thing happened so early, there’s plenty of time to recover. But a corrupt judiciary, a supine AG, and both sides media will converge to help that fat fuck back into the White House. The Times was positively gleeful in “dutifully” burying Biden: AG must have his revenge, of course.
Things may turn around, but today I’m going to indulge a toxic fatalism.
This has been coming for the last two years, since Merrick Garland allowed that fat traitor to completely skate on insurrection. Now he won’t be tried for anything. The both sides media can rejoice along with MAGA world thugs and crooks.
It’s too early to start drinking, but metaphorically, I’m on my second bottle of Jameson’s.
Not the debate I was hoping for, and yet:
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-27-2024
"The true losers of this presidential debate were the American people
Rebecca Solnit
in the debate format run by CNN. The network’s glossy pundit-moderators started by ignoring the elephants in the room – that one of the two men standing at the podiums was a convicted felon, the leader of a coup attempt, an alleged thief of national security documents who was earlier this year found liable in a civil court for rape, and has promised to usher in a vengeful authoritarian regime if he returns to office.
Instead they launched the debate with the dead horse they love to beat in election years, the deficit and taxes. Throughout the excruciating evening, Joe Biden in a hoarse voice said diligent things that were reasonably true and definitely sincere; Donald Trump in a booming voice said lurid things that were flamboyantly untrue. The grim spectacle was a reminder that this is a style over substance game.
As political journalist John Nichols put it, “CNN is illustrating how a ‘debate’ where the moderators reject the basic responsibility of fact-checking in real time, and refuse to challenge blatantly false statements, is not a debate. It’s a chaos where lies are given equal footing with the truth.”
Much has been said about the age of the candidates, but maybe it’s the corporate media whose senility is most dangerous to us. Their insistence on proceeding as though things are pretty much what they’ve always been, on normalizing the appalling and outrageous, on using false equivalencies and bothsiderism to make themselves look fair and reasonable, on turning politics into horseraces and personality contests, is aiding the destruction of the United States."
Another SF dystopian memory brought back by the Supreme's Chevron decision:
C. M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons."
They are on the march.
@RAS: Solnit's argument is glib at best. I would agree with it if Trump's constant lying and his felony convictions were somehow a surprise -- secrets that his opponent just found out during the course of the debate and could not possibly anticipate.
But Biden knew all along that he had two major tasks, the first being to convince Americans he was strong enough to the job until 2029, and the second to effectively calling out and defending against Trump's lies. Biden failed at both. A strong debater would have dispatched Trump's lies and exposed him as a hollow charlatan, adjudicated rapist and 34-time felon.
I think I read where some Democrat said the debate was the greatest political disaster in American history. That no doubt is hyperbole, but it ain't far off.
Is Ginsburged a verb yet?
It should be.
@Ken Winkes: Not sure what the meaning of "ginsburged" is.
Encore?
Joe Biden — with Elton John — soon arriving just a few blocks away.
https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-pride-president-joe-biden-visit-stonewall-national/15007800/
In her dissent in "Loper Bright", whereby SCOTUS took away the executive branch's routine ability to issue and enforce regulations (which are applications of laws), and shelving "Chevron Deference", Justice Kagan wrote in part:
... “A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris,” she wrote. She later added another pointed criticism: “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,” Kagan continued, “the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar.”
I spent much of my federal career (US Foreign Service) working within the context of regulations. As a rule, the folks who actually handled the work being done had the best feel for the meaning and application of the laws and regulations under which they worked. Often, someone affected by those regulations, who wanted expansions, exceptions, or misapplication, would try to get decisions moved as far up the chain of authority as they could shove it. It was pretty clear that the higher the decision level, the better your chances of getting a favorable exception (which would often be an error).
I referred to that as "seeking the highest level of ignorance."
Corollary damage from this type of rule-seeking was that the "exception" would then become the rule. After a while the folks down in the trenches would figure there was no point in working hard to determine regulation application, but would just let issues go up the chain. That's called "abdication at the bottom."
Then the folks at the top would think that their experts below them were useless.
It's a very negative feedback dynamic, inevitably leading to management by personality. And SCOTUS just bought that whole package on a national scale.
I was half listening to a tv pundit this morning who suggested Biden might not have a choice about staying in if he loses his big money donors when a link to a somewhat relevent and memorable essay by Lewis Lapham from a 2015 Harper's arrived in the inbox.
On the role of money in the contest for president, he writes:
"The campaign season begins with the ceremonial mixings of democratic clay with the aristocratic gold that makes the rulers of the city most valuable and therefore adequately equipped to rule. Money once again is the hero of the tale, called upon to judge the worth of a thing as the price of a thing, to rate the strength of the would-be nominees according to the cost of their manufacture. Like the weighing-in before a horse race or a boxing match, the ritual obliges the prospective champions of democratic freedom to set forth on vision quests within the kingdom of consecrated wealth, to bow and smile and bend a knee, if necessary to crawl, before the various seats of power occupied by elite opinion in the political parties, and by the consortium of commercial interests (the banking, oil, communications, real-estate, and manufacturing industries) that constitute government of, by, and for the rich. The plutocracy is a nonpartisan equal-opportunity employer of folk-festival talent; its agencies and agents interview candidates of both parties applying for position in the White House, invite presentations at indoor banquets and outdoor barbecues, on conference calls or text messages, at a Colorado ski lodge or a California yacht basin."
Bombast Bursting in Air
@ Marie
Maybe should have capitalized it.
Ruth Bader Ginsburged. As in poorly timing your departure, moved more by ego than public interest.
Too harsh? Off the mark? Or just too obscure?
@Ken Winkes: Thanks. I was talking with a young medical specialist a few months back, and we agreed that the human body is a pretty flawed organism. There's so much that can break down, that can go wrong. "So much for intelligent design," the doctor said.
When you come to terms with that obvious fact, it's much easier to understand that none of us -- not even the best of us -- like Ginsburg or Biden -- is indispensable. The hard part is telling that to Ginsburg and Biden.