theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer. katherine molé mfa ... art director

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Compton Shooting: Charges Filed in AMBUSH of 2 Deputies Earlier This Month

  Barnini Chakraborty

Deonte Lee Murray, the man accused in the ambush shooting of two Los Angeles County deputies in Compton earlier this month, has been charged with attempted murder, prosecutors announced Wednesday.

Murray, 36, was taken into custody after a lengthy standoff three days after the deputies were shot, though his arrest was unrelated to the attack on the deputies, Sheriff Alex Villanueva initially said.


The deputies, a 31-year-old woman and a 24-year-old man, were shot in the face and head while sitting in their patrol car near the Compton metro station. Both underwent surgery and have been released from the hospital. They are expected to make a full recovery.

At the time of his arrest, Murray, who has suspected gang ties, was charged with one felony count each of carjacking, second-degree robbery, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm - personal use of a firearm. The charges also included allegations of association with a criminal street gang, discharging a rifle inflicting great bodily injury, and personal use of an AR-15.

The deputy shooting was captured on surveillance video and shows a person in dark clothes walking up the pathway near Compton's Blue Line station and approaching the parked patrol car from behind. The person in the video is seen coming closer to the car and then can be seen facing the passenger door of the patrol SUV. Then, just inches from the window, the person is caught on video raising a gun, opening fire, and running back the way he came.

Soon thereafter, the passenger door of the SUV opens and a deputy stumbles out, with a hand on their head. The driver's side door then opens. One of the wounded deputies says, "Compton Pax, deputies down."

The female deputy then managed to help her partner out of the cruiser and hide behind a concrete pillar for safety. She applied a tourniquet to her partner's arm to help stop the bleeding.

"They became victims of a violent crime for one reason - they were doing their job and they were wearing a badge," LA County District Attorney Jackie Lacey said Wednesday. Lacey added that the charges could be amended if there is evidence that the attack was done to benefit a gang.

Villanueva believes the hatred toward police officers is growing and that there are "people who have such deep-seated hatred against law enforcement that they're just willing to kill anybody unprovoked."

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has reportedly donated $50,000 to each of the Compton deputies.


THE DEBATE: The Candidate is a Corpse

theodore miraldi.

Here's how I saw it. Trump landed the heavy blows to a tired-looking old man who was visibly stressed out. Sorry, but Biden looked like a dead man they stood up at an Irish Funeral for the last call ritual.

In essence, we learned nothing about Biden and his policies that we hadn't already known. Biden offered nothing of substance to solidify his base or attract undecided voters. He might have lost some support with this very poor first appearance to the general public. Trump was as animated as usual filled spit and vinegar interrupting Biden constantly.

Biden was visibly shaken and stumbled around the podium looking confused. More than once, he lost his train of thought and gave answers to questions no-one had asked. I deal with the elderly in my work and any honest person could see Biden's decline. The fact that his party of fools is allowing this man to be a punching bag borders on elder abuse.

What struck me as most egregious was his refusal to clarify his own positions. Like most Democrats who have lost the ability to create new cogent policy, Biden stood there and attacked everything Trump has done in his first term. He offered no solutions to Covid but wearing masks and refused to acknowledge that his stand on taking the vaccine is contributing to the fears ordinary Americans are experiencing.

Every policy Biden supports is some far off solution to everyday problems we are having now. All pizazz and promises no-one will ever see. Simple stuff like electric cars without any comprehensive explanation on how we will generate electricity without Coal.

This wasn't a death knell for Biden, but the coming days will be the footnote attached to the Biden Campaign. If Sleepy Joe has a prayer in Hell to be president something big has to happen. I personally think the game is already over.

Biden will be known as the barely alive Scapegoat of 2020.

Comey Claims IGNORANCE of Dossier Details, Carter Page Warrant: 'I DON'T KNOW'

The former FBI director took questions regarding the origins of the Russia probe

Ronn Blitzer

Former FBI director James Comey is being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee over exactly what he knew regarding FBI actions in the early stages of the Russia investigation – but early on in the hearing claimed ignorance of virtually every act that was mentioned during questioning.

A Justice Department Inspector General (DOJ IG) report previously found that the warrant application and subsequent renewals applications for surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page contained inaccuracies and omissions and relied on the Steele dossier despite evidence that it was unreliable.

Comey opted not to deliver an opening statement Wednesday but welcomed questions. Committee Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., got right to the point and asked what efforts the FBI made to verify the dossier.

"I don't know," Comey said.


Graham also asked what Comey knew about former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who has pleaded guilty after being accused of altering an email to say that Page was not working with the CIA despite the FBI having knowledge that Page was working with the agency.

"I know nothing of Mr. Clinesmith," Comey said.

Comey passed blame for the warrant, claiming he only signed the certification for it, not the affidavit it was based on, but when asked who the committee should look to in terms of who was accountable for misleading the court, Comey again came up empty.

First Comey said to look at the IG report, but when pressed on whether he knew, he gave a familiar response.

"I do not," he said.

Graham later discussed ex-spy Christopher Steele's sub-source, whom the FBI interviewed. The sub-source told the FBI that the information in the dossier was unreliable and was based on rumor. Graham noted that the sub-source was known by the FBI to be a possible Russian spy. Confronted with these details, Comey again pleaded ignorance.

"I don’t remember learning anything about Steele’s sources," he said. When asked if he knew that the FBI interviewed the sub-source in January 2017, Comey again said, "I don't remember."


Asked again, Comey later said he did "not remember being told of any interview." When asked if he should have been told, Comey said he could not answer.

Graham grew noticeably frustrated by Comey's responses.

"Was this an important case for the FBI or was this a run of the mill thing?" he asked at one point, commenting on the lack of information Comey appeared to have.

Graham also brought up a U.S. intelligence community report that included information that salacious details about Trump in the dossier came from Russian intelligence.

"Did you know that when it came out?" Graham asked, emphasizing that parts of Steele's dossier were believed to be Russian disinformation, yet the FBI continued to rely on it anyway.

Graham went on to cite false details in the dossier, such as a reference to a Russian consulate in Miami that does not exist, and a trip that Trump attorney Michael Cohen was said to have taken to Prague that has since been debunked.

"They never corrected all the misinformation in the dossier," Graham said. "It was used over and over again, and they never told the court about how unreliable it was. Is that a small thing or a big thing?"

"Any time there are material omissions in an application to a judge of any kind, but especially an ex parte proceeding, it's a very important issue," Comey said.


Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Refugees From TYRANNY Agree: Authoritarian Threat in America Now is From the LEFT

                                                                  Federal judge Amy Coney Barrett's Catholic faith is being attacked by some on the left. Reuters

 Rod Dreher

Left-wing hysterics with major media platforms have for years been shrieking that President Trump is about to install a fascist dictatorship any minute. Meanwhile, unheard immigrants from the Soviet bloc warn that totalitarian tyranny is actually emerging from the left — and Americans are too naive to see it coming.

Sounds crazy, right? I thought so when I first heard it from an elderly woman who spent six years as a political prisoner under Czechoslovakia’s Marxist regime. But the more I talked to people like her, the more I came to see them as canaries in a coal mine. Their message is the same: What’s happening in America today reminds me of life under Communism.

It’s hard for Americans to see it, in part because our idea of totalitarianism comes from Orwell’s “1984” and Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago.” But Stalinism 2.0 is not what the old dissidents predict. They point out that the left in power is achieving totalitarian goals — not simply obedience, but the internalization of left-wing ideology by much softer means.

Who needs the gulag when you can compel obedience by threatening someone’s job or destroy her reputation on social media? Why bother with the secret police when the masses already hand over ­detailed personal information to Google and other woke capitalist behemoths via smartphones and laptops?

The coming soft totalitarianism may well unify the government, major corporations, the media and leading institutions of civil society, which will collaborate to suppress dissent and coerce conformity. The United States could one day have its own version of China’s high-tech social credit system. Those who resisted Soviet Communism urge us to prepare now for resistance, while we still can.

The shocking truth is, we Americans are living in a pre-totalitarian situation. In 1951, Hannah Arendt published her landmark study “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” in which she studied the conditions that led both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany to embrace totalitarianism. It makes for sobering reading in our present circumstances. Among the signs:

Loneliness and social atomization: Totalitarian movements, said Arendt, are “mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals.” And “what prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century.”

Loss of faith in hierarchies and institutions: Loneliness is politically significant because it leaves the masses hungry for a sense of community. In a healthy society, an individual could find fellowship and common purpose through the institutions of civil society: political parties, churches, civic clubs, sports leagues and the like. In contemporary America, these have largely withered.

Transgressiveness for its own sake: In both pre-Bolshevik Russia and pre-Nazi Germany, elites reveled in acts of rebellion that made fun of traditions and standards, moral and otherwise. They immersed themselves in baseness and called it “liberation.” They also took pleasure in overturning institutions and established practices for the sake of outsiders.

Wrote Arendt: “The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced their way into it.” Her words apply with eerie prescience to the Black Lives Matter upheaval in the streets and in elite institutions.

Susceptibility to propaganda and ideology: In pre-totalitarian nations, wrote Arendt, hating “respectable society” was so narcotic that elites were willing to accept “monstrous forgeries in historiography” for the sake of striking back at those who, in their view, had “excluded the underprivileged and oppressed from the memory of mankind.” It’s like Arendt anticipated The New York Times’ fraudulent 1619 Project.

America is sleepwalking into soft totalitarianism. If we ignore the prophetic voices of those who survived Communism, we deserve what we get. The best defense ordinary people can mount, said Solzhenitsyn, is to refuse to stay silent in the face of ideological lies. If we hope to defend our freedom, we have to start by rejecting a comforting lie we tell ourselves: that it can’t happen here.

Rod Dreher is author of the just-published “Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents.”


Monday, September 28, 2020

How The United States Can STOP Helping ILLEGAL Immigrants Get ABORTIONS

As the Supreme Court vindicates the administration’s approach to abortions for internationally trespassing teens, it’s time to bring this episode to its rightful conclusion.

 Scott Lloyd

In late February 2017, as a Trump administration appointee to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I received my assignment as the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. In that role, I oversaw more than 100 shelters for immigrant children and teens present in the United States without legal status. Less than a week into performing those duties came an unexpected development: our office received three requests for abortions from teens in the shelters run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

This was the first time the administration confronted these circumstances. We examined whether there was any legal obligation for the government to assist these teens in obtaining these abortions. After careful analysis of the issue, we found there was not. Instead, we would have to review each request on a case-by-case basis, treating both the unborn child and the mother as lives deserving protection.

In October of that year, the American Civil Liberties Union sued me both in my official capacity and as an individual in what became known as the Garza v. Hargan case. This two-pronged strategy produced two separate legal justifications for our actions.

The government argued that when refusing to use taxpayer assets to assist these girls in obtaining abortions while we searched for a sponsor for the child, our office was not imposing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion. The argument did not question the applicability or appropriateness of the Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion framework.

I, along with my boss, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Steve Wagner, made a different argument in the personal portion of the litigation. There we argued that there was a genuine issue of whether the girls in ORR care had ever effected a legal entry into the country, which calls into question whether the U.S. Constitution, particularly a 14th Amendment Substantive Due Process right to abortion, applied at all. The ACLU dropped the personal portion of the lawsuit.

Litigation on the other issues continued, however. At the District Court level, the Department of Justice position received a defeat at the hands of Judge Tanya Chutkan.

At the appellate level, the government’s position enjoyed a brief victory at the DC Circuit before a full en banc panel ruled against it, drawing a dissent from Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who identified the same issue Wagner and I had raised. Dissenting Judge Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the government that our approach did not impose an undue burden on the right to abortion.

After the loss, DOJ did not appeal to the Supreme Court, reasoning that Justice Kavanaugh, who had ascended to the Supreme Court, would recuse himself, and the remaining justices would split along ideological lines, leaving the D.C. Circuit ruling in place. A lull in activity followed, both in the courts and at the agency level.

All of this leaves one of the legal theories untested in the courts, however, and there are new indications that it would prevail. In June of this year, the Supreme Court provided support for this position in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. There, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a five-person majority (two justices dropped out of this portion of an otherwise 7-2 decision), wrote of “more than a century of precedent” saying:

**For foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicil or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law.

The court further reasoned:

**When an alien arrives at a port of entry — for example, an international airport — the alien is on U. S. soil, but the alien is not considered to have entered the country for the purposes of this rule. On the contrary, aliens who arrive at ports of entry — even those paroled elsewhere in the country for years pending removal — are treated for due process purposes as if stopped at the border.

He concluded that portion of the analysis by writing, “An alien in respondent’s position has only those rights regarding admission that Congress has provided by statute,” and the “Due Process Clause provides nothing more.”

This reasoning confirms the position Wagner and I staked in our response to the Garza litigation. More importantly, it provides a sound legal basis for a renewed policy of refusing to assist in obtaining abortions for teens who are temporarily in the care of the United States.

At issue is not just a question of the government getting out of the way and allowing abortion to happen. There is, arguably, a requirement that the federal government accompanies these minors to their abortions (6 U.S.C. 42 (b)(2)(B) forbids ORR from releasing these teens on their own recognizance). This is indeed how we understood our legal obligations during the litigation.

In any case, from a programmatic perspective, the program never would (and ought not to) consider allowing the children to travel with a third party without its supervision. Accordingly, these abortions require federal grantees to make arrangements for the abortion, supervise the transport of the teens, accompany them during the procedure, take them back to the shelter, and administer all necessary follow-up medical care and psychological services. Our federal tax dollars, in other words, are contributing to these deaths when they occur.

The U.S. government should do all it can to avoid this entanglement in the practice of abortion. From a policy perspective, such a reform ends government assistance in the destruction of innocent human life. It also prevents America from becoming an abortion destination for teens in countries with more restrictive abortion laws.

From a political perspective, polls have found that 60 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion, which is what’s at stake here. Legally, the Supreme Court has affirmed that individuals do not obtain the full battery of Substantive Due Process rights, including to abortion, when they cross into the country illegally.

The decision in Thuraissigiam implies that any effort to reform the policy would receive support if instituted on the basis that these teens have not effected an entry into this country and as such, any right to abortion must come from Congress.

I’m confident President Trump would be happy to take on this fight once again. Now is the time for the administration to act. President Trump, who has earned his reputation as the most pro-life president in American history, should not miss this opportunity.Scott Lloyd is an attorney who works on policy related to health, family, and religious liberty. He lives in Virginia.


Supreme Court Nomination Battles Turned NASTIER as Dems Abandoned NORMS, Unleashed ATTACKS

 Stephen Dinan

President Trump hadn’t even announced his Supreme Court pick this weekend yet a whisper campaign had already developed against Judge Amy Coney Barrett questioning whether her adoption of two Haitian children was on the up-and-up.

Tactics formerly reserved for only the nastiest of political campaigns have in recent years bled over into battles for the judiciary, breaking down one of the last walls of decency in a town not known for it.

It used to be quite different.

One of President John F. Kennedy’s nominees was announced in late March 1962, and about two weeks later was sitting on the high court.

Even as late as the Clinton administration, a former ACLU lawyer — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — could win confirmation to the Supreme Court on a 96-3 vote in the Senate, just 42 days after her nomination was submitted.

Republicans, who control the chamber now, have vowed to try to match that pace, though they have no hope of coming close to that near-unanimous vote of support for Judge Barrett.

The Congressional Research Service says things have gotten worse since the late 1960s, when a series of fights over the nominees of President Richard Nixon ushered in a new era.

Over nearly 200 years before that, it took about a week for the Senate to receive a nominee, sometimes hold hearings, then vote. Since 1967, that time has soared to an average of 68 days.

And it’s not just because of big-time showdowns. While blowups over Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas are well-remembered, there were also legislative knife fights over picks like Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a nominee of President George W. Bush, who waited 82 days for confirmation and had to survive an attempted filibuster.

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said as the court has inserted itself deeper into social issues, Americans — and the politicians they elect — have grown more combative over picking who’s making those decisions.

“There’s a lot more at stake,” he said.

The battle over Justice Ginsburg’s seat was raging even before Judge Barrett was announced Saturday as the nominee to fill it.

Republicans are speeding to get her approved, with a timeline of acting before the Nov. 3 election. Democrats say that timetable’s a thing of the past, and it should take months to approve a nominee.

And in this case they say any action at all is hypocritical after Senate Republicans just four years ago refused to act on President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, citing the looming election in blocking him for almost a year.

The treatment of Judge Garland is still very fresh in the minds of Democrats.

“Garland was simply an extension of how politicized the court has become. It was a naked abuse of the process to deny a good man even a hearing,” said Jim Manley, a veteran Democratic operative who worked for Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Harry Reid when they were involved in fights over judges.

Mr. Manley said after what the GOP did to Judge Garland, if they now speed Judge Barrett through, Democrats must “strongly consider” expanding the high court, should they take control of the White House and Senate in November’s elections.

Republicans say they won’t be lectured on treatment of judges.

Indeed, analysts looking for a start to the nastiness often point to how Democrats approached Bork’s nomination in 1987.

A high-powered legal mind and appeals court judge, Bork was deemed “well-qualified” for the high court by the American Bar Association.

But Kennedy delivered a withering repudiation of his judicial philosophy in a famous floor speech, challenging Democrats, who controlled the chamber, to reject him. Everything from his legal writings to his personal video-rental history became fodder.

Bork’s nomination was defeated on a 58-42 vote, and “to bork” joined the lexicon as a term for unfair treatment of a nominee.

Four years after the first borking, Justice Thomas’s nomination arose and then-Sen. Joseph R. Biden led the Senate in a set of hearings over allegations of sexual harassment. Justice Thomas survived the process and was confirmed on a 52-48 vote.

“Compare the treatment of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh to that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, and it’s clear that there already is one set of rules for a Republican president and one set of rules for a Democrat president,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican.

Mr. Graham, who as Judiciary Committee chairman will oversee Judge Barrett’s confirmation process, said four years ago that he would never move forward with a nominee in a presidential election year.

The treatment of Justice Kavanaugh changed his mind, he says.

Mr. Trump’s previous high court pick was forced to go through a second round of hearings after a woman came forward saying he’d sexually assaulted her in high school. Other women followed.

None of the major accusations was substantiated, and the first woman’s own account was disputed by those she said were present. Justice Kavanaugh squeaked by on a 50-48 vote.

Judging by the numbers, GOP picks have indeed had a rougher go than Democratic nominees.

Since 1980, Republican presidents have submitted 11 high court nominations to the Senate. They’ve lingered an average of 73 days, and earned an average of 71 votes in support.

Democrats over that time have submitted four high court nominees. All of them have been confirmed, they were pending for an average of 67 days, and they were approved with an average of 79 votes in support.

And no Democratic president’s picks have ever faced an attempted filibuster. Six Republican picks have.

Mr. Manley said Republican presidents make more controversial picks.

“For better or worse, Democratic presidents have usually tried to thread the needle by nominating relatively moderate candidates for the court. Republicans on the other hand oftentimes have picked very controversial nominees with very conservative views,” he said.

Mr. Levey saw a different explanation: “The Democrats are just better at, or more prone to, I’m not sure which, the politics of personal destruction.”

He said Republicans have been more deferential to Democratic presidents in the past, but he said that may have been undone by the treatment of Justice Kavanaugh.

“We may look at the days between Bork and Thomas and Gorsuch as the good old days, because a lot of people are angry about Kavanaugh on both sides of the aisle,” he said. “We maybe in for a period that makes 1987 through a few years ago look tame.”

Mr. Levey said there have been some windows of intense court battles before.

The years before the Civil War saw a number of presidential picks defeated or forced to withdraw. And during the New Deal era the court was also a battleground. Then, as now, Democrats talked of stacking the panel with more justices in order to change the playing field.

Today’s nastiness can be broken into two categories: the norm-breaking, and the rule-rewriting.

An example of norm-breaking began in 2003, when Democrats launched filibusters of President George W. Bush’s appeals court nominees. The first target was Miguel Estrada, a young superstar lawyer whom Democrats called “dangerous” because he was on track to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

After waiting more than two years, Mr. Estrada withdrew his nomination. During the confirmation fight, his wife suffered a miscarriage.

Democrats would go on to filibuster nine other Bush picks for appeals court seats, then attempt to filibuster Justice Alito.

A decade later, the GOP used the same tactic on some of President Obama’s nominees. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, engaged in rule-rewriting, using the “nuclear option” to defang the filibuster for all presidential nominees save Supreme Court picks.

When Mr. Trump took office and Democrats launched the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee, the GOP followed Mr. Reid’s lead and used the nuclear option to complete the rules change for high court picks, too.


'Antiracist' Author Ibram X. Kendi: Whites Like Barrett Who Adopt BLACK Children Can Still Be RACIST

Says White 'Colonizers' used adopted Black Children as 'Props'

Valerie Richardson

Amy Coney Barrett adopted two of her seven children from Haiti, but she could still be racist, according to a leading “antiracism” expert.

Ibram X. Kendi, author of the bestselling “How to Be an Antiracist,” touched off an uproar on social media Saturday by arguing that some White people believe adopting a minority child shields them from racism charges, a comment made in the context of Ms. Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children,” Mr. Kendi tweeted on Saturday. “They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.”

He continued: “And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.”

His comments came in response to Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, who tweeted, “With 2 adopted children from Haiti, it is going to be interesting to watch Democrats try to smear Amy Coney Barrett as racist.”

President Trump nominated Ms. Barrett, a federal judge, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, touching off a heated political debate over the nominee that has spilled into her Catholic faith and family.

Among those slamming Mr. Kendi’s argument was Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, a staunch Barrett defender.

“Ibram Kendi launches a cruel, racist attack against Judge Barrett and her family. But what else would we expect from a fraud like him?” asked Mr. Cotton in a tweet.

Said Outkick the Coverage’s Clay Travis: “Adopting two children from Haiti is now racist. This is the way Democrats are going to attack Amy Coney Barrett? Yikes.”

Mr. Kendi accused his online critics of twisting his meaning.

“I’m challenging the idea that White parents of kids of color are inherently ‘not racist’ and the bots completely change what I’m saying to ‘White parents of kids of color are inherently racist,’” Mr. Kendi tweeted. “These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda. Let’s not argue with them.”

Columnist Jonathan Chait said the tweet had been ‘misconstrued’: “This is a basic logic error by Kendi’s critics. He is simply denying the syllogism that if you adopt a black child) then B you cannot be racist. That is not the same as calling her racist,” he tweeted.

Mr. Kendi’s defenders also argued that Ms. Martin started it with her tweet, while conservatives said the debate began Friday with Democratic activists who questioned Ms. Barrett’s adoptions.

“As an adoptee, I need to know more about the circumstances of how Amy Coney Barrett came to adopt her children, and the treatment of them since,” tweeted NextGen America’s John Lee Brougher on Saturday. “Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning.”

Ms. Martin has since deleted her original tweet, which included a photo of a woman holding a child who has been identified online as Ms. Barrett’s sister, not Ms. Barrett.

Mr. Kendi, a Boston University professor, argued in his 2019 book that people are either racist or “antiracist,” and that being “not racist” isn’t the same thing.

“One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist,” said Mr. Kendi in his introduction. “There is no in-between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.”

Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson called “antiracism” a “euphemism for race-based advocacy.”

“In ‘antiracist’ lingo, being merely not racist is racist,” said Mr. Jacobson on the conservative Legal Insurrection website. “There are only two alternatives, racist or antiracist, and race-neutrality is deemed racist. Advocating colorblind policies and the treatment of people without regard to race is considered racist in this formula.”


Sunday, September 27, 2020

Durbin: Democrats 'CAN'T STOP the Outcome' on SCOTUS Fight

                                                                Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., pays respects as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose under the Portico at the top of the front steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building                                                                                                                                  on Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2020, in Washington. Ginsburg, 87, died of cancer on Sept. 18. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

  Gabriella Muñoz

 Sen. Dick Durbin said Sunday that Democrats have no way to block the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Durbin, the Senate Democratic whip, said that while they may be able to drag out the process, it won’t be enough to extend it beyond the November election.

“We can slow it down, perhaps a matter of hours, maybe days at the most, but we can’t stop the outcome. What we should do is to address this now respectfully,” the Illinois Democrat said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Mr. Durbin also took a swing at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for not having worked on any bipartisan talks for COVID-19 relief but then “dropped everything” for the vacancy.

“Now we’re going hell-bent on getting this done before the election,” he said. “Of course, [McConnell] had to reverse the position he took four years ago, saying that we should wait till the next president to fill the vacancy.”

In the wake of the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Democrats vowed to fight back against a swift Republican nomination process, with some on the left threatening impeachment. However, they have shifted to focusing more on driving out the vote.

Democrats have hammered Republicans this past week for blocking President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, in 2016, arguing that the GOP’s quick nomination process is the height of hypocrisy.

Some on the left have called for expanding the court if Republicans succeed in naming a conservative judge in the liberal justice’s place.

The GOP defended their decision, arguing that their party controls both the White House and Senate, unlike the situation four years ago.

They also locked down enough of their members to push Judge Barrett through the Senate — with only Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine dissenting to having a nomination vote fewer than 40 days from an election.

President Trump announced his pick to fill the empty seat — Judge Amy Coney Barrett — on Saturday, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said he wants to start hearings on Oct. 12.

Judge Barrett’s confirmation would mark a shift in the court, with a 6-3 conservative majority.