Wednesday, December 22, 2021

Leftist view: The Morning: Decoding Joe Manchin

December 22, 2021

Good morning. Joe Manchin's history suggested he could vote for Build Back Better. Why didn't he?

As another extraordinary year comes to a close, I wanted to thank you for making The Morning a part of your day. Subscribers to The New York Times make this newsletter possible, and I hope you'll consider becoming one of them. You can do so here.

Joe Manchin this month at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing.Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

Five reasons

Until this week, Joe Manchin tended to side with his fellow Democrats on major questions of economic policy.

During the Trump administration, Manchin voted against both the attempts to repeal Obamacare and a tax cut skewed toward the rich. Earlier this year, he insisted on changes to President Biden's $1.9 trillion virus rescue bill, but still provided a deciding vote for it.

Manchin's breaches with his party have tended to come on issues other than economic legislation, like abortion, voting rights and Supreme Court confirmations. This pattern makes sense, too: Manchin's West Virginia constituents, like most Americans, largely agree with the Democratic Party on economic policy, while being to the right of the party on many social issues.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Denies NY Healthcare Workers, But Lawsuit Not Dismissed

BREAKING: SCOTUS Denies Injunction to NY Healthcare Workers; Lawsuit Will Continue

Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) denied our application for a stay in the NY healthcare workers lawsuit, meaning that the State of NY's mandate denying religious exemptions to NY healthcare workers will remain in place while the litigation plays out. While this is certainly disappointing (and devastating for the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs), the silver lining is that the case has not been dismissed, and this is not a final decision on the merits of our case. Therefore our underlying lawsuit against Governor Hochul and the NY Department of Health will continue to be litigated in the United States District Court. It is highly likely that the case will once again find its way to the SCOTUS, and this time after the merits have been tried, and we have had the opportunity to present our full case. We are confident that once all of the evidence has been laid on the table, the SCOTUS will see this for what it is: a grossly unconstitutional abuse of executive power. Read this statement about today's decision from our attorney, Cameron Atkinson.

This setback highlights our dire need for immediate and substantial funding. With more funds, we could retain more attorneys, and file more lawsuits. We will never win back our freedoms by playing "whack-a-mole," slowly filing one lawsuit here, and one lawsuit there, while they move at breakneck speed tearing up every last shred of the Constitution. We need a barrage of lawsuits in every state, so that we are never putting all of our eggs in one basket, and giving us the best change to defeat this tyranny once and for all. This is a multi-headed dragon breathing the fire of oppression on the American people, and we intend to slay it in the courts. That is simply not possible if we don't get a lot more money, and fast.

We sincerely appreciate anything you can contribute to what is, in our opinion, the most important fight of our lifetimes (and quite possibly the most important fight in American history). If we don't have freedom to practice our religious beliefs or refuse unwanted medical treatment, what is left of this country? You already know the answer.

Please consider a donation today and tell everyone you know to do the same. As the end of the tax year approaches, remember that gifts to our nonprofit organization are tax-deductible in most cases.*

DONATE NOW

*Consult a tax professional for advice regarding the deductibility of charitable contributions.

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Progressive Propaganda: “Say goodbye to swing districts”

Robert -- A new analysis from Politico found that during the past decade, "nearly 90 percent of congressional races were easy wins for one party or the other" in states where legislators drew congressional maps in the 2011 redistricting cycle.

The report stated the rate of competitive races was almost twice as high in states where courts or commissions drew the maps. This is a perfect example of why we work to stop map manipulators from exploiting the redistricting process.

More ways to speak up about vaccine mandates

Let's get noticed!

Public comment periods are often unnoticed, and are a mandatory part of the process of promulgating rules and regulations. We have a great way that you can take action and magnify your voice on the vaccine mandate issue!

Click below to send a message to your elected official about the OSHA and Medicare/Medicaid Vaccine Mandates, then follow that with posting your comments on the government record during the public comment period for the same issues. Currently only hundreds of Americans have placed comments on the official record. Let's add our voices and get noticed!

Watch for the public comment links and directions to come in your confirmation email from IFA after you finish your elected officials' message.

Share this with others to make our impact even greater!

Send Your Message

Thank you IFA intercessors! We are grateful for you!

DAVE KUBAL, PRESIDENT/CEO

If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.

DONATE

You're receiving this email because you signed up to pray at IFAPray.org

If you would like to opt out of these email messages click here.

Sunday, December 5, 2021

Help Us Protest the CV19VX Mandate - Wednesday 8 December 2021

Fellow Members of the King George TEA Party:

Forwarding the latest regarding the COVID-19 mandate grassroots and protest effort. Again, please make every effort to attend one of these protests in solidarity with our concern for unconstitutional government mandates. Here is an indicator that there is legal basis for declaring the vaccine mandates beyond the federal government's authorization:

Judge Blocks Portions of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Vaccine Mandate (US)
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/judge-blocks-portions-centers-medicare-and-medicaid-services-cms-vaccine-mandate-us

A judge temporarily blocks a vaccine mandate for health workers in 10 states.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/29/us/judge-blocks-vaccine-mandate.html

Come support this important effort!!!

James Hull

King George TEA Party

King George, Virginia

james@kinggeorgeteaparty.com

https://www.kinggeorgeteaparty.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jeremiah Hansen" <jeremiah.hansen@comcast.net>
Subject: Protest information
Date: December 5, 2021 at 1:16:38 AM EST

Jim,

Here is a summary from the last protest, and the flier for the next one. We are trying a Wednesday protest this week, and the next week is scheduled for Tuesday for a VIP.

We Stand Together,
Jeremiah

Nov. 30 Summary

The protests on Nov. 30 were defined by the reactions of the drivers. We have gotten used to rude gestures, shaking of heads, and some amount of disdain during the protest and afterwards. Today was a totally different day. The number of negative responses for both morning and evening maybe rated a dozen or so. The positive responses, however, were absolutely through the roof! There wasn't a 5 minute gap in the morning where drivers were not honking, waving, giving a thumbs up, etc. In many cases, they were interacting with us before we were able to interact with them! The afternoon had fewer horns but just as many waves and thumbs up. Our afternoon cheer leader gave away all of her Constitutions before 4:30! Everyone of us commented how different today was. It was a great day to protest, and awesome to see the positive change!

The protests are starting to change minds and spread the word. Every protest has someone thanking us for being out there. Many of them are in the same boat as we are, and showing them they aren't alone makes a change for the better. I have been told that people who were on the edge of giving in to the coercive mandate. However, they reconsidered because they saw our protests and website. Those are folks who are no longer alone and aren't in turmoil. That's a powerful testimony to the effort.

This is a marathon, and the responses we were getting today are showing that we are gaining momentum while the mandate is starting to fade. This is the time to make it to a protest, write your congressman, or even a letter to the editor. Any one thing won't do it alone. When taken together, the impact of all of those things will move things in the right direction. When we stand united, we will prevail.

Thursday, December 2, 2021

The Morning: Abortion at the court

View in browser|nytimes.com

Continue reading the main story

December 2, 2021

By David Leonhardt and Ian Prasad Philbrick

Good morning. The Supreme Court seems likely to undermine or overturn Roe v. Wade.

Outside the Supreme Court yesterday.Gabriela Bhaskar/The New York Times

A new era

All six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have long signaled that they have qualms with the Roe v. Wade decision. What's been less clear is whether at least five of them — enough to make a majority — would be willing to overturn Roe, which would require scrapping decades of legal precedents.

Doing so has downsides for the court. It would then look more like just another partisan branch of government that changes policy when its members change, rather than a nonpartisan interpreter of legal principles. At least a few justices are already worried about the court's image. "This court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said in a recent speech.

During yesterday's arguments over a Mississippi abortion law, the three Democratic appointees on the court tried to appeal to their conservative colleagues' concerns about the court's standing. If the justices overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Stephen Breyer said, many Americans would say, "'You're just politicians.'" Breyer added, "That's what kills us as an American institution."

This strategy has worked in the past. It has sometimes swayed Chief Justice John Roberts during his 16 years on the court and also seemed to influence Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. On L.G.B.T.Q. rights and Obamacare, the justices issued rulings that were more modest and consistent with precedent than a strictly partisan court would have issued.

On abortion, however, many court watchers think that the strategy is likely to fail this time.

After Ginsburg …

The questions that the justices ask during arguments are often a preview of how they will rule, Adam Liptak, who covers the court for The Times, points out. Yesterday, all six conservative justices asked questions suggesting support for Mississippi's law. It outlaws abortion after 15 weeks, a clear violation of Roe and subsequent court rulings protecting abortion access early in pregnancy.

Roberts's questions indicated that he might still prefer a relatively narrow ruling that does not fully undo Roe. But he is no longer the swing vote. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, the court has a majority of five Republican-appointed justices even if Roberts votes with the Democratic appointees.

In yesterday's arguments, all five of those justices — Barrett, Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — seemed interested in a full repeal of Roe. Alito suggested that the ruling was "egregiously wrong."

Still, the outcome remains uncertain. Justices often try to influence one another during behind-the-scenes negotiations over a case. Roberts or the three liberal justices may yet convince Barrett and Kavanaugh that the political costs of full repeal are too large. The court is likely to announce its decision by early July.

Either way, the long political battle over abortion seems to be on the verge of a new era. In much of the country, abortions may soon be less common than they have been for nearly a half-century.

The justices' words

"Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?" Sonia Sotomayor asked. "I don't see how it is possible."

Elena Kagan made the case for upholding Roe: "This is part of our law. … This is part of the fabric of women's existence in this country."

Breyer quoted from a 1992 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Roe: "To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the court's legitimacy beyond any serious question."

Roberts, in suggesting the justices uphold the Mississippi law without fully overturning Roe, noted that the U.S. now permits more abortion access than many other countries. "I'd like to focus on the 15-week ban," he said, adding that it was similar to "the standard that the vast majority of other countries have."

Kavanaugh suggested that overturning Roe was the neutral solution: "Why should this court be the arbiter rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?"

"If I were to ask you what constitutional right protects the right to abortion, is it privacy?" Thomas asked. "Is it autonomy? What would it be?"

Alito expressed doubt that the Constitution protected abortion: "Can it said that the right to abortion is deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the American people?"

Barrett noted that previous rulings requiring abortion access "emphasize the burdens of parenting." But because women can put babies up for adoption, those burdens are not an issue, she suggested.

Gorsuch implied that the court's previous focus on viability — the point after which a fetus can survive outside the womb — was inappropriate. (Many abortion opponents emphasize that younger fetuses are living beings.) "If this court will reject the viability line, do you see any other intelligible principle that the court could choose?" Gorsuch asked.

More analysis

"What I heard Wednesday morning was not a court in which a majority was worried about backlash, but a court ready for revolutionary change," Mary Ziegler, a legal historian, writes.

"I'm skeptical about dark prophecies of a legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court should it overturn Roe — or the coming electoral blood bath for the G.O.P.," The Washington Post's Megan McArdle writes. "Most people don't care about abortion as much as pro-choice Twitter. Many of those who do are on the other side." (A previous edition of this newsletter analyzed public opinion.)

THE LATEST NEWS

The Virus

"We are not back to Square 1," San Francisco's health director said.Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times

Health officials identified Omicron in the U.S.: a patient in California who had returned from South Africa.
"Get boosted now," Dr. Anthony Fauci urged.
President Biden will extend a mask requirement on airplanes, trains and buses through mid-March.
He is also planning to announce insurance reimbursement for at-home tests and new travel protocols.
The coronavirus survives inside tiny airborne particles of water. This simulation shows how.

Politics

Donald Trump first tested positive for Covid days before telling the public — and before standing on a debate stage with Biden, former officials say.
Stacey Abrams, a Democrat who narrowly lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race, is running again.
Charlie Baker, the moderate Republican governor of Massachusetts who faced a Trump-backed primary challenger, will not seek a third term.
Senate Republicans are threatening a government shutdown over Biden's vaccine mandate for large employers.

Michigan School Shooting

Mourners outside Oxford High School in Michigan.Nick Hagen for The New York Times

A fourth student died after Tuesday's shooting. Here's what we know about the victims.
Prosecutors charged a 15-year-old with terrorism and murder, and are considering charging his parents.
Some critics are questioning the purpose of active-shooter drills in schools.

MORNING READS

Ankylosaurs had a unique way of fighting predators.Luis Pérez López

Prehistoric: This dinosaur had a battle ax for a tail.

Headway: What does it mean to save a neighborhood?

Wheels: Step inside an auto show for the raddest cars of the '80s and '90s.

Advice from Wirecutter: Ways to support small businesses this holiday season.

Lives Lived: Alvin Lucier was an experimental composer who was more interested in the physics of sound than in melody and harmony. His music could sound like howling feedback or electronic crackling. He died at 90.

ARTS AND IDEAS

Chloe Bailey is a protégé of Beyoncé.Mike Coppola/Getty Images

Pop music's new guard

This year marked a shift in the music industry: A new class of Gen Z artists cemented their A-list status.

Before, the 19-year-old Billie Eilish shouldered "the burden of representing her entire generation" in the music establishment's eyes, Lindsay Zoladz writes in The Times. That's changed: Lil Nas X, Olivia Rodrigo, Chloe Bailey and the Kid Laroi are part of the new guard climbing Billboard charts, securing Grammy nominations and injecting liveliness into otherwise tepid awards shows.

These artists grew up on the internet, admiring musicians who are now their contemporaries. Lil Nas X was an extremely vocal member of Nicki Minaj's online fan army, while Rodrigo, a well-documented Swiftie, interpolated a riff from Taylor Swift on her debut album.

In some cases, established stars shepherded the careers of these younger artists. Beyoncé signed the R&B sister duo Chloe x Halle to her label as teenagers; her influence is clear in the now-23-year-old Chloe Bailey's solo track "Have Mercy."

But success may have also contributed to a more complicated relationship between the upstarts and their forebears: Both Minaj and Drake declined invitations to collaborate on Lil Nas X's debut album "Montero."

It's all evidence of "the growing generational divide between pop's millennial elders and their Gen Z heirs," Lindsay writes. The younger artists "represent something thrillingly — and, perhaps to some, threateningly — new." — Sanam Yar, a Morning writer