#Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

MLK at 95.

January 15, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born 95 years ago on January 15, 1929. As a Baptist minister, he advocated non-violence while promoting civil rights. He spoke for the poor, the oppressed, and the disenfranchised. While he was imprisoned in a Birmingham jail for protesting segregation, he responded to eight white ministers who had criticized him for participating in protests that they described as “unwise and untimely.”

Dr. King’s famous reply to the white ministers explained why he traveled to Birmingham from Atlanta to protest:

I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider.

While Dr. King was keenly aware of the racism that served as the understructure of the Christian church in the old South, he would be shocked by the virulent, mean-spirited, anti-Christian message that animates many (not all) evangelical congregations in America today. They form the backbone of Donald Trump's support in Iowa and beyond. They have adopted Trump's message that treats the poor, oppressed, and disenfranchised as “outsiders” and “others” who do not belong in America.

Over the last several days, we have learned that members of the Texas National Guard physically blocked federal Border Patrol agents from responding to reports of immigrants in distress in the Rio Grande. The bodies of a mother and two children were later recovered from the river in the area where immigrants were reported to be in distress.

Texas, of course, denies that its cruel actions caused the drownings—a denial that should be viewed skeptically from a state whose governor—Greg Abbott—recently commented Texas troopers could not shoot immigrants crossing the border because the troopers would be charged with murder by the Biden administration. Texas governor criticized after comment about shooting migrants | The Texas Tribune.

Similar animus underlies the recent comments of Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, who withdrew Mississippi from a federal program to provide food to school children during summer breaks. Governor Reeves said Mississippi withdrew from the program to fight “attempts to expand the welfare state.”

Blocking efforts to rescue a drowning mother and her children? Regretting the inability to shoot immigrants because it would be murder? Denying food to poor children out of spite? Who are these people? How do they look at themselves in the mirror?

Ninety-five years after Dr. King’s birth and fifty-five years after his death, it is difficult to believe that people who identify as upstanding members of the Christian church can support such actions.

Another section from Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail is relevant to this moment in our nation’s history:

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust.

Dr. King’s words were prophetic. See Pew Research (10/17/19) In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace.

And, of course, as Dr. King recognized, “there are some notable exceptions” among church leaders who supported his work—just as there are exceptions today. Several readers have recommended Faithful America as an antidote to Christian nationalism. The organization’s helpful FAQ page explains why “Christian nationalism” is not Christian. See Resisting Christian Nationalism: FAQ + Resources | Faithful America.

On this day commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birth, we can see how far we have come—and how much further we must go. He didn’t despair. Neither should we.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[tinydick2]

Your mother has a tiny dick asshole

[misfitwashere]

Elect Democrats. Reform the Court. Defend the Constitution. Preserve Democracy.

March 5, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

MAR 5 READ IN APP LISTEN TO POST · 18:32

The most important lesson from Monday’s disqualification ruling is that the Supreme Court is broken beyond repair. The reactionary majority made that fact abundantly clear by unilaterally amending the Constitution to remove the Insurrection Clause from the 14th Amendment. 

Those sworn to protect the Constitution are dismantling it. The protectors of the Constitution have become its adversary in order to protect a failed insurrectionist who has promised a second effort to overthrow the Constitution. (“I said I want to be a dictator for one day.”)

[filosofablogger]

Committee Flops Like A Dead Fish

Robert Hubbell’s newsletter this morning covered a few important and encouraging topics, for those of us who are feeling a bit overwhelmed by the right-wing drama of late, both in the House of Representatives and in the State of Florida!  Here is just one of the topics he covered … Democrats Fight Back! Robert B. Hubbell 7 March 2023 Democrats have been frustrated by the asymmetry between GOP…

[garudabluffs]

What happens now? Judge Dearie will continue his review of the non-classified documents. We should expect that process will turn out badly for Trump. And then . . . sometime in 2023, we should expect an indictment of Trump for espionage.

“A reader asked in the Comments section yesterday whether the crime of espionage requires an intent to share the defense secrets with another party. It does not. Under Subsection (d) of the 18 USC § 793 (Espionage Act), if a person lawfully obtains possession of information harmful to the security interests of the United States (if disclosed), the person is guilty of espionage if he “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

Thus, under the Espionage Act, there is no requirement of an intent to share the information with anyone. Continued possession of defense secrets after a demand for their return is espionage. That is why the DOJ will indict Trump.”

READ MORE https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/a-good-day

88 Comments “This was quite a masterpiece Mr. Hubbell.  I appreciate your excellent summary of events and the links to documents.  I would also like to add Mr. Raskin's diatribe against the Republicans in the House yesterday.  He gave them heck concerning the January 6 Select Committee.  Here is the link:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/let-s-tell-some-truth-raskin-goes-scorched-earth-on-republicans-during-hearing-over-opposition-to-jan-6-committee/ar-AA126gqR#:~:text=View%20Profile-,%E2%80%98Let%E2%80%99s%20Tell%20Some%20Truth!%E2%80%99%20Raskin%20Goes%20Scorched%20Earth%20on%20Republicans%20During%20Hearing%20Over%20Opposition%20to%20Jan.%206%20Committee,-Michael%20Luciano%20%2D

Robert B. Hubbell  12 hr ago Author

“There is a DOJ rule against indicting within 69 days of an election. I suppose a November or December indictment is possible .”

“Is it possible for TFG to appeal the 11th Court's decion to the Supreme Court?” Robert B. Hubbell Author “Possible. Highly unlikely that the Court would grant review.”

“A terrific newsletter! To add frosting to the cake of Robert's excellent perspective, check out Lawrence Tribe's conversation Wednesday at the weekly Community Advocates/Jews United for Democracy and Justice. It's on YouTube at” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAg9rT2csgc.

COMMENTS “And may I quote constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, who last night stated on a Zoom with Jews United for Democracy and Justice: "The recoking is coming for the president."  (Former president!) I slept well.”

Legal expert reacts to Trump's inaccurate claim about declassifying

https://youtu.be/wAkvJPd1uoI

Attorney who sued Trump over real estate properties speaks out

CNN's Jim Sciutto and Poppy Harlow discuss the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Trump accusing him of business fraud with New York real estate attorney Adam Leitman Bailey. Bailey has sued Trump in the past over his real estate properties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H_HZlL8cJg

Trump Seems To Think His Presidential Powers Continue

“Former Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security Miles Taylor, former FBI counterintelligence agent Pete Strzok, former U.S. attorney Harry Litman, and Wall Street Journal Justice Department reporter Sadie Gurman react to Trump’s claim that he declassified documents just by “thinking” about it “

364,376 views Sep 22, 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDoIn23gyxg

3,612 Comments  

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Promises Kept.

January 5, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

When Joe Biden declared his candidacy for president in 2019, the nation was bruised, battered, and divided by three years of Trump's unrelenting chaos and carnage. During Biden’s year-long campaign, Trump plunged America into darker waters as he tried to extort Ukraine into fabricating lies about Joe Biden and his son. Trump then engaged in gross dereliction of duty by mishandling the nation’s response to Covid, ultimately resorting to lies and quackery as the death toll mounted.

Biden stepped into the breach, promising “to restore the soul, honor, dignity, and decency” of America. In word and deed, Biden has kept those promises—despite virulent and violent opposition by MAGA extremists who sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power—and who still seek to destroy our democracy today.

Historians may view Biden’s greatest success as the restoration of normalcy, decency, and rationality to the executive branch of the US government. Biden’s legislative accomplishments are historic and will be an enduring legacy standing alone.

Identifying Biden’s legislative successes is easy; identifying the depth and breadth of Biden’s restoration of decency and rationality is more difficult—because living in a normal frame of reference is subtle and ineffable. It infuses every aspect of democracy and political discourse. It is the absence of chaos, it is not waking up every morning thinking, “Oh, God. What has he tweeted now?”, and it is not hearing every governmental action re-interpreted through Trump's lenses of narcissism, delusion, and insecurity.

Joe Biden acts within a rational political framework. His policies can be praised or criticized because they exist (in writing) and reflect the reasoned judgment of Biden and his staff after a period of reflection and debate. They are not made up “on the fly” in response to reporters’ questions shouted over the noise of helicopter rotors.

The return to normalcy, decency, and dignity is neither sexy, compelling, nor “made for TV.” But it was precisely what the nation needed after the chaos of Trump's tenure as president. Joe Biden kept his promises. For that, we owe him a debt of gratitude that we must repay in 2024.

On the eve of the third anniversary of January 6, Biden is launching his 2024 campaign in earnest. In a political ad previewed on MSNBC, Biden said that he is making “the preservation of democracy” the centerpiece of his campaign. In the ad, Biden says, in part,

All of us are being asked, “What will we do to maintain our democracy?” History is watching. The world is watching. Most importantly, our children and grandchildren will hold us responsible . . . .

A campaign theme of “preserving democracy” is neither sexy, compelling, nor “made for TV.” But it is precisely what the nation needs as it stares into the abyss of a second Trump term as president.

I have heard from dozens of readers this week who are disappointed with Biden’s responses regarding immigration and the war in Gaza. Some have suggested that they will not vote or will vote for a third-party candidate. Both of those options are the functional equivalent of voting for Trump.

The freedom to criticize the president is a privilege of our democracy guaranteed in the Constitution. We can debate presidential policies only if we have a democratic frame of reference within which to hold those debates.

That democratic frame of reference will exist under a second Biden term. Under Trump, the democratic frame of reference will be replaced by a simple test: Does speech praise Trump? If not, the speaker will act at their peril. Trump’s vigilantes will threaten the speaker, and state and federal agencies will pretend the threats are harmless jokes or over-exuberant expressions of loyalty to Trump.

The threat of vigilantism to punish speech is not hyperbole. As we approach the third anniversary of January 6, elected officials who criticize Trump or apply the law to his unlawful conduct are being deluged with death threats. They are being “swatted” by sick individuals who call 9-1-1 to make false reports of crimes in progress—resulting in the deployment of armed emergency responders to the elected officials’ homes.

Like Joe Biden, Trump has made promises. He has promised his followers that, if re-elected, “I will be your retribution.” He has also promised that he will be a dictator “on day one” if he is elected to a second term.

Joe Biden has kept his promise “to restore the soul, honor, dignity, and decency” of America. We should take Biden at his word that he will work to preserve democracy if re-elected in 2024.

As with Biden, we should take Trump at his word: He will exact retribution and act as a dictator on day one of his second term.

The competing promises of Trump and Biden tell us everything we need to know about the choice we face in the 2024 election.

Concluding Thoughts.

The choice between presidential candidates in 2024 could not be starker. There is no ambiguity, nuance, or grey area. We must help Joe Biden communicate that fundamental difference and help people understand that the choice in 2024 is not about policies or the economy. It is about democracy—and whether we are for it or against it.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A summary of Ron DeSantis’s anti-education efforts in Florida.

         It is challenging to keep up with the evolving efforts by Ron DeSantis to destroy the educational system in Florida. In his most recent gambit, he is threatening to ban all Advanced Placement courses in Florida (as part of his feud with the College Board over the African American Studies course). Vox has published a comprehensive summary (current through Tuesday, February 14) of DeSantis’s efforts. See Vox, What DeSantis is doing to Florida schools, explained.

[h/t Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

+

"It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.“ 

 — H.L. Mencken

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

One more time with feeling . . . Ignore the polls!

November 6, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

    We are one year out from the 2024 general election, and media outlets are busy predicting a future they cannot know. I routinely advise readers to “ignore the polls,” so whenever I write about the polls, readers tell me I should follow my own advice. Fair point. But the poll by the New York Times released over the weekend prompted dozens of readers to send panicked emails asking me to “Talk them off the ledge.” The NYTimes poll will get more coverage in the Monday news cycle, so in anticipation of hundreds of additional panicked reactions, I will once again address the issue of polling. It is a scourge that we will live with for the next year, so occasional reminders that the only poll that matters will occur on November 5, 2024, is in order.

          In short, the NYTimes poll found that Biden is trailing Trump in five of six swing states and that Democrats are losing ground among young, Hispanic, and Black voters. Many voters believe that Trump is better able to manage the economy, that Biden is “too old,” and cannot identify anything that Biden did to improve their lives. Go figure!

          Nothing I write below should be interpreted as saying that polls do not contain valuable information. They can (depending on their quality). Polls include information that helps campaign managers and candidates focus and refine their message. They are NOT predictions. Remember Nate Silver’s article in FiveThirtyEight in 2011, “Is Obama toast? Handicapping the 2012 Election.” If polls taken one year before elections were meaningfully predictive, then each of the following candidates should have quit their first campaigns: Carter, Clinton, Obama, Biden—and Trump.  

          So, why should we not panic over the polls? Indeed, is there a silver lining? (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

          Let’s start with a lesson that we must not forget: The old paradigm of “horse-race” polls no longer applies. Why? Because such polls assume that two legitimate candidates are competing for votes within the system. We have never had a candidate who seeks to overthrow the system. Or who attempted a coup. Or who plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the first day of his next term. Or who called for the execution of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Or who will use the DOJ to persecute his perceived enemies. Or who was found liable for sexual assault. Or who will support a nationwide ban on reproductive liberty. Or who views Putin as a friend and NATO allies as adversaries and leeches.

          I have not studied the NYTimes methodology, but I am confident it simply asks some variant of, “Which candidate do you support in 2024?” Faced with that limited construct, it is easy to be seduced into making a forced choice without regard to the fact that Trump is an anti-candidate. That error is compounded because the poll does not highlight Trump’s fundamental desire to destroy the system but instead asks about Biden’s age.

          As I have written before, believing that most voters will walk into the polling booth in 2024 and vote only for “Biden vs Trump” is simplistic—and beneath the NYTimes and its expert pollsters. When WaPo/ABC published a poll that was subjected to nearly universal derision for its flaws, I wrote the following:

          The 2024 presidential election features two candidates who are surrogates for different visions of America: Democracy versus autocracy; liberty versus tyranny; dignity versus bigotry; science versus disinformation; personal autonomy versus subservience to Christian nationalism; sustainability versus ecological disaster; safety versus gun violence; global stability versus confrontational isolationism. All of that—and much more—is on the ballot in 2024. The WaPo/ABC “horse-race” poll captures none of that.

          Three more points and then I will stop paying attention to the polls (as I recommend).

          First, Dan Pfeiffer’s article in The Message Box on Substack explains why the NYTimes poll shows the path forward. See Dan Pfeiffer, How to Respond to the Very Bad NYT Poll. If you are worried about the poll and want more details, I highly recommend Dan’s article. Pertinent passages include the following about “double haters” who dislike both Biden and Trump:

Perhaps the simplest explanation of Biden’s political challenges is that he has done a lot of good, popular things, and almost no one knows about them. Navigator tested a series of messages about Biden’s various accomplishments, including allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs, the bipartisan law to rebuild roads and bridges, and efforts to create more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Guess what? All of this stuff is super popular. Medicare negotiating drug prices is supported by 77% of Americans, including 64% of Republicans. The bipartisan infrastructure law has the support of 73% of Americans and a majority of Republicans. Every accomplishment tested in this poll had majority support. It’s hard to overstate how impressive that is in a deeply divided, highly polarized country at a time when the President’s approval ratings are in the low 40s. That’s the good news. Here’s the bad news: according to the poll, a majority of Americans heard little or nothing about the accomplishments tested. There is a yawning knowledge gap. Now for more good news (think of this as a positive sandwich); the poll shows that when people are told about what Biden has done, his approval rating goes up. The voters most likely to move are the “Double Haters.”

          My penultimate point: The 2024 presidential election matters a lot. But so do congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, state legislative elections, municipal elections, and more. If—heaven forbid—Trump wins in 2024, a second Trump term with a Democratically controlled Congress is radically different than if Republicans control Congress. And states can be bulwarks of individual liberties if Republicans are able to pass national legislation. So, let’s not put every hope and aspiration into the presidential election. We should do everything we can to win up and down the ballot.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Although I did not intend to devote the entire newsletter to the NYTimes poll, I will stop here. We will be dealing with bad polls, handwringing, and negative press for the next year, so it is worth drawing a line in the sand and saying, “Enough!” The election is not over until it is over—notwithstanding the media’s best efforts to declare defeat a year in advance. And while I am criticizing the media, shame on the media for normalizing Trump as a legitimate political candidate. He is not.

          We will prevail over the long run, no matter what happens in 2024. (To be clear, I believe Biden will win re-election.) But if we have confidence that we will ultimately prevail, we can set aside the apocalyptic fears that we wrongly ascribe to a single election in 2024. We don’t need to panic over every poll.

The NYTimes poll reminds us that we have plenty of work to do in spreading the good news of Biden’s accomplishments. So, rather than needlessly fretting a year in advance about 2024, let’s recognize that we have a year to achieve

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Drew Sheneman

* * * *

Both-siderism reaches new heights at NYTimes

We stand at a stark divide in the fight to protect the reproductive liberty of women. One candidate, Joe Biden, promises to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade if he is given a majority in both chambers of Congress. The other, Donald Trump, is okay with a total ban on abortion and jailing doctors as long as gerrymandered state legislators pass a law banning abortion. The positions of the candidates could not be more different.

So, imagine the surprise of receiving a newsletter from the NYTimes by Jess Bidgood with the headline, “Two Imperfect Messengers Take On Abortion.” (This article is accessible to all.)

The headline—and the article—create a false equivalency between President Biden and Donald Trump that does not exist. It is true that Joe Biden—a devout Catholic—has struggled with abortion as a matter of personal conscience throughout his fifty-year political career.

Biden indeed struggles to use the term “abortion” in his speeches—a sign of his sincerely held religious beliefs, not a sign of hesitancy in supporting the constitutional rights recognized in Roe v. Wade. At every opportunity, Biden promises to reestablish Roe v. Wade.

Over the last 25 years, Biden has been a staunch and vocal supporter of reproductive liberty for women despite his genuinely held religious views. That, in Bidgood’s opinion, makes Joe Biden an “imperfect messenger” on equal footing with the candidate who brags about killing the constitutional right to right to reproductive liberty and openly supports total bans on abortion.

Bidgood’s article is irresponsible journalism because in striving for balance, she distorts reality and does violence to the facts. Donald Trump is a menace to women’s rights, while Joe Biden is a champion for women in all things—including their right to reproductive liberty. Bidgood’s article is misleading in suggesting otherwise.

Read Bidgood’s entire article (linked above). If (after doing so) you want to share your thoughts with her, you can reach her at onpolitics@nytimes.com.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * *

Why Nikki Haley’s answer omitting slavery as a cause of the Civil War matters.

What happened.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire, a member of the audience asked Nikki Haley to identify the causes of the Civil War. She gave an evasive answer that omitted slavery as a cause of the Civil War. She said,

I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.

Haley was immediately attacked, mocked, and condemned for failing to identify slavery as a cause of the Civil War. During a Thursday morning interview, she attempted to walk back her prior answer with an equally offensive and unconvincing answer. As described in Forbes,

During the Thursday morning interview, she said the goal of the Civil War was to ensure each person has their freedom, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the “freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way . . . Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South, of course I know it’s about slavery.”

Why it matters.

Haley has a history of minimizing or dismissing the role of slavery in the Civil War. The incident on Wednesday is merely the latest episode that reveals her willingness to cater to white nationalists in pursuit of elected office. As former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said,

She's smart and she knows better. And she didn't say it because she's a racist. Because she's not. I know her well and I don't believe Nikki has a racist bone in her body . . . the reason she did it is just as bad, if not worse, and should make everybody concerned about her candidacy. She did it because she's unwilling to offend anyone by telling the truth. If she is unwilling to stand up and say that slavery is what caused the Civil War because she's afraid of offending constituents in some other part of the country, if she's afraid to say that Donald Trump is unfit because she's afraid of offending people who support Donald Trump, . . . What's going to happen when she has to stand up against forces in our own party who want to drag this country deeper and deeper into anger and division and exhaustion?”

Christie is right that Nikki Haley is afraid to tell the truth. But she is also a reactionary conservative posing as a moderate. As the NYTimes noted, her failure to include slavery threatens to destroy her image as someone attractive to moderate Republicans and independents. Per the Times,

Ms. Haley’s appeal as a candidate of moderation is mixed. As governor of South Carolina, she signed some of the harshest immigration and anti-abortion laws in the country at the time, as well as a stringent voter identification law that required photo ID at the ballot box.

But Haley’s omission of slavery was not merely an act of cowardice on her part. She was promoting a dangerous revisionist history of the Civil War that has taken root in the former Confederate states. Haley is promoting the myth of the “Lost Cause” of the South—a romanticized transformation of the brutal practice of slavery into (in the words of Haley) “traditions that are noble — traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry.”

I highly recommend a thoughtful and detailed discussion of Haley’s dangerous answer by Joshua Zeitz in Politico, Opinion | Why Was It So Hard for Nikki Haley to Say "Slavery"? Civil War History Has the Answer.

Zeitz writes,

The Lost Cause mythology was more than bad history. It provided the intellectual justification for Jim Crow — not just in the former Confederacy, but everywhere systemic racism denied Black citizens equal citizenship and economic rights. [¶] With GOP presidential candidates waffling on the Civil War, rejecting history curricula in their states and launching political fusillades against “woke” culture, it remains for the rest of us to reaffirm the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, who in the last years of his life stated: “Death has no power to change moral qualities. What was bad before the war, and during the war, has not been made good since the war. … Whatever else I may forget, I shall never forget the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.”

Nikki Haley wants to forget “the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.” In pursuit of the presidency, she recasts “fighting for slavery” as “noble traditions of history, heritage, and ancestry.” Shame on her.

Haley is telling us who she is. We should believe her.

Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[From Robert B. Hubbell’s Newsletter]

Fifth Circuit holds a biased and embarrassing hearing on the mifepristone ruling of Judge Kacsmaryk

         Federal district Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an order withdrawing the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling and ordered that the ruling go into effect immediately. The US Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit and issued an unusual order that effectively told the 5th Circuit it could not ban the distribution of mifepristone until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. In other words, the Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit on a “time out” for bad behavior.

         A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on the merits of the appeal today. The hearing was an embarrassment. The judges acted like petulant children who were upset that they had been reprimanded. Worse, they made no pretense of maintaining impartiality or objectivity—or adherence to the rule of law. The obscene display of judges following personal religious convictions rather than the Constitution is explained by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The 5th Circuit is furious that the Supreme Court put it in mifepristone timeout.

         I highly recommend reading Stern’s article in full to get the full flavor of the hearing. Stern is at his best in this article. He writes, in part:

And here’s the punchline: Nothing these intellectual Lilliputians do will even matter. The Supreme Court has already decided that the 5th Circuit cannot be trusted with this case: In April, it froze the court’s previous decision stringently limiting access to mifepristone, expressly maintaining the freeze until the justices themselves take further action. Elrod, Ho, and Wilson are howling into the wind; they have no power to change a thing about federal regulation of medication abortion. The adults in the room have already put them in time-out. And rather than demonstrate that they can judge responsibly, they seized on Wednesday’s hearing to throw a combination temper tantrum/gaslight party. No lessons have been learned, no maturity acquired. This time-out probably isn’t ending anytime soon.

Ho read aloud random people’s criticisms of the FDA and made Ellsworth respond to them, then declared that federal courts should override the FDA’s scientific determinations because the agency isn’t trustworthy.

These are not serious people. This is not how real judges conduct themselves. This was barely a judicial proceeding. It was a struggle session in which three anti-abortion zealots yelled at attorneys who have already prevailed in this case once at the Supreme Court. Their rage should have been aimed at SCOTUS, but it’s not a good look for lower courts to trash-talk their superiors, so they redirected it to Harrington and Ellsworth instead. (Erin Hawley, wife of Sen. Josh Hawley, argued against mifepristone; the less said about her unceasing stream of shameless falsehoods, the better.)

         I also recommend Talking Points Memo, Right-Wing Judges Mulling Restricting Abortion Drug: Isn’t The Real Problem Here How Mean You All Were To Kacsmaryk?

         If we had a functioning Supreme Court that cared about the rule of law, it would castigate the 5th Circuit panel for its shameful display of bias, animus, and religious zeal.

         But, as Stern notes, the 5th Circuit cannot restrict the distribution of mifepristone. And the failure of the 5th Circuit to address serious legal questions—like the absence of standing by the plaintiff doctors—may doom the 5th Circuit’s opinion to a chilly reception in the Supreme Court. We can only hope.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bill Bramhall :: @BillBramhall

* * * *

Terrific economic news for all Americans

February 3, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Friday brought a stunningly good report on increases in jobs, wages, and productivity. The report was so good that a Biden Twitter account released the Fox News commentary on the jobs report as a campaign ad! See @BidenWins, Trump Senior Advisor Larry Kudlow explains how the Biden economy deserves more credit, even from Conservatives. In short,

Inflation-adjusted wages were up 4.5%

the economy added 353,000 new jobs in January (non-farm payroll)

prior two months jobs report revised upward by 126,000

worker productivity rose 2.7%

President Biden also tweeted an important metric for Black workers:

New economic analysis shows that under President Biden, the Black unemployment rate was under 6% for a full year. That's the lowest Black unemployment in history.

The media is no longer able to sustain its negative narrative about the economy, finally admitting that President Biden’s stewardship deserves credit for the good economic news. See Politico, Biden’s economy keeps messing up Trump’s message.

Per Politico,

[W]ith the risk of a recession seeming to recede, even Trump’s close allies acknowledge it’s getting tough to tell voters a bleak story about the economy. And though far from certain, it’s now possible that the nation’s economic health could become an electoral asset for Biden in an unexpected way.

For an overview of the economic reports released on Friday, see CNN, The US economy added 353,000 jobs in January, starting off 2024 with a bang.

In yesterday’s Comment section, a reader (Theressa) posted an informative and fun quiz by the Washington Post Editorial Board, Opinion | Mad at Biden over the economy? Take our quiz. (Accessible to all.) The takeaway: the media narrative about the “Biden economy” is wrong. Check it out.

Let’s not lose sight of the most important point: Joe Biden isn’t trying to achieve outstanding economic metrics just to gain partisan advantage or bragging rights. He is trying to improve the lives of all Americans by increasing employment and wages. He is succeeding. During Biden’s tenure, the economy has created 14.8 million new jobs—which has made a material difference in the lives of tens of millions of Americans.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

“Women are not without electoral or political power.”

April 3, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

APR 03, 2024

President Biden issued a statement on Tuesday condemning a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that effectively institutes a six-week abortion ban. The state supreme court’s decision overruled a 35-year-old precedent recognizing that Florida’s constitution protected reproductive liberty. Biden’s statement said, in part,

[The decision] will likely trigger Governor DeSantis’ even more extreme law that would prevent women from accessing care before many even know they are pregnant. It is outrageous. These extreme laws take away women’s freedom to make their own health care decisions and threaten physicians with jail time simply for providing the medical care that they were trained to provide. Vice President Harris and I stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose, including in Florida, where voters will have the opportunity to make their voices heard in support of a reproductive freedom ballot initiative this November. We . . . continue to call on Congress to pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade in every state.

As President Biden noted, the six-week abortion ban is effectively on the ballot in Florida in November, when Floridians will have the opportunity to enshrine reproductive liberty in the Florida constitution. Public support for the six-week ban is in the low 20% range.

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment (called “Amendment 4”) reads as follows:

No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.

Under Florida’s law governing constitutional amendments, Amendment 4 must garner at least 60% of the vote to pass. Although that is a high bar, it is not impossible. Other initiatives have surpassed the 60% threshold (approving medical marijuana and requiring parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion).

As explained in an article on Substack by MCIMAPS, Floridians have reason to hope that Amendment 4 will pass by the 60% threshold in November. See MCIMAPS Report, Abortion and Weed will be on the Florida Ballot in 2024 (substack.com).

Will Amendment 4's presence help President Biden and other Democrats' chances on the Florida ballot in November?

Possibly, even probably.

First, because of the 60% threshold, supporters of Amendment 4 will have every incentive to drive massive turnout.

Second, supporters of a constitutional initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana will also drive turnout in November.

Third, as noted in an analysis by Mark Joseph Stern, the justices on the Florida Supreme Court indicated in Tuesday’s opinion that they favor the “fetal personhood” doctrine, which would outlaw abortion (and contraception) in Florida at every stage of pregnancy from the moment of conception. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The threat lurking behind Florida’s November abortion vote. If Amendment 4 fails to pass, the six-week ban will likely turn into a total prohibition on abortion. When Florida voters realize the additional implications of failure to pass Amendment 4, turnout should be massive.

Finally, Senator Rick Scott is up for re-election in November. Rick Scott supports the six-week ban (“If I was still governor, I would sign the bill.”) His position on abortion is based on his belief that life begins at conception, a position that aligns with the fetal personhood movement in Florida.

There is reason to believe that Senator Rick Scott is vulnerable. See The Hill, (3/5/24), Scott narrowly leads Mucarsel-Powell in Florida Senate race: Poll. Rick Scott will be forced to run on a six-week abortion ban and the fetal personhood doctrine—positions that are highly unpopular in Florida.

The Biden administration is right to say that Florida is “winnable” for Democrats. Although the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court will impose hardship on thousands of women in the next seven months, the anti-choice extremists have overreached to the point they are prompting a national backlash.

In late-breaking news on Tuesday, it appears pro-choice activists have secured enough signatures to place a pro-choice constitutional amendment on Arizona’s ballot in November. See Arizona Likely To Join Growing Group Of States With Abortion Ballot Initiatives | Talking Points Memo. The group Arizona for Abortion Access has collected more than 506,000 signatures; only 383,923 are required to place the measure on the ballot.

Let’s make Justice Alito regret his attempt to patronize women with his snide statement in Dobbs, “Women are not without electoral or political power.” No, they are not. Nor are their partners, parents, siblings, friends, and fellow citizens. The reactionary anti-choice movement is about to find out just how much electoral power they have.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Important decision by Pennsylvania Supreme Court on reproductive liberty

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have written an essay about an important decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that stands as a firm rebuke to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs. The decision points the path forward for other states. See Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rebukes Dobbs, Sam Alito's abortion views.

As explained by Lithwick and Stern, Pennsylvania has a state constitutional “equal rights amendment”, adopted in 1971, which bars the denial or abridgment of “equality of rights” because of “the sex of the individual.” Based on that provision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that “abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination.”  

Lithwick and Stern explain:

On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment. The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.” The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision thus spurned Dobbs in two ways. First, the majority held that laws regulating a woman’s body do discriminate on the basis of sex, a truth that has been widely understood by legal scholars for decades. And second, the majority explained that rooting women’s rights in the past is, itself, a form of sex discrimination, perpetuating misogynistic beliefs about gender inequality by judicial decree.

The decision in Pennsylvania points the way forward for other states until we can expand the Court and undo the travesty of Dobbs.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A stunt impeachment inquiry.

December 13, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

          House Republicans will vote to open an impeachment inquiry of President Biden on Wednesday. Why? They can’t say—because they don’t know. Oh, sure, they have baseless conspiracy theories—but no evidence (a common situation with conspiracy theories). So, because they have no evidence to support baseless conspiracy theories, they argue they need an impeachment inquiry to help them pursue imaginary evidence—thereby maintaining the illusion of corruption where none exists.

          Of course, the real reason they will open an impeachment inquiry is because Donald Trump told them to do so. Trump was impeached twice—a level of disgrace achieved by no other president. Trump's solution is to denigrate and debase impeachment so he can argue that impeachments are nothing more than partisan retribution. As always, Trump seeks to undermine the institutions that dare to hold him accountable. Here, he is assaulting the Constitution because its provisions were (rightly) applied in a way never before witnessed in the history of our nation.

          The efforts of House Republicans to evade answering the “Why impeach Joe Biden” question would have been funny if they were not tragic and dangerous. Indeed, several House Republicans admitted that they did not have evidence to impeach Joe Biden—which is why (they claim) they need to open an impeachment inquiry. See Talking Points Memo, As They Admit There’s No Evidence, House Republicans Will Still Greenlight Impeachment Inquiry.

          The tragedy of the stunt impeachment inquiry is that it comes at a time when congressional Republicans are failing at every level in discharging their constitutional duties. Ukrainian President Zelensky visited with President Biden and senior congressional leaders on Tuesday—and left empty-handed. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—a strong ally of Ukraine—expressed doubt that Congress will authorize additional funds for Ukraine before January, a month after the US will reportedly run out of funds earmarked for Ukraine. See Politico, McConnell: Border-Ukraine deal this year ‘practically impossible’.

          But if action on funding Ukraine is delayed until January, it will be swept into the maelstrom of two deadlines for government shutdowns. Current government funding expires on January 19 and February 2, 2024. While Senate negotiators are reportedly hard at work to reach a compromise, any compromise requires resolving intractable, decades-old issues relating to the management of the US southern border. By tying funding for Ukraine to the resolution of long-standing immigration issues in the US, congressional Republicans seem to be carrying water for Vladimir Putin and (therefore) Donald Trump. 

          Speaker Mike Johnson set an unattainable bar in setting conditions for aid to Ukraine. He said,

What the Biden administration seems to be asking for is billions of additional dollars with no appropriate oversight, no clear strategy to win and with none of the answers that I think the American people are owed.

          Johnson is demanding that the US exercise “oversight” of Ukraine’s “strategy” for defeating an invading Russian army. As the brave Ukrainian people have demonstrated, their “strategy” is to resist Putin’s vastly larger army with every ounce of determination and bravery they can muster. That bravery has held the Russian army at bay for more than 600 days, a stupendous achievement that continues to defy predictions that Ukraine would collapse in a week. The Ukrainian bravery and battlefield success is apparently not enough for the milquetoast Mike Johnson.

          President Biden responded to the vacuous, mealy-mouthed statement by Johnson, saying it was a “Christmas gift” to Vladimir Putin. Biden also noted that news commentators in Russia’s state-controlled broadcast network celebrated the Republican stonewalling of aid to Ukraine. Biden said,

This host of a Kremlin-run show said: ‘Well done, Republicans. That’s good for us,’” If you’re being celebrated by Russian propagandists, it might be time to rethink what you’re doing. History, history will judge harshly those who turn their back on freedom’s cause.

          The GOP’s impeachment and the reluctance to provide more military aid to Ukraine are rooted in Donald Trump's scheme to use his control over Republicans in Congress to inflict political damage on Biden—even if that vendetta hurts the interests of the American people and its allies.

          The good news (explained below) is that Democrats are making progress toward regaining control of the House. Indeed, Speaker Johnson’s stunt impeachment and abandonment of Ukraine will hasten that outcome.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]