Ha ha. What a beaut! Can we copy that? Bumper sticker ready, too! We all have a new name for Amy Coney Barrett— Amy Coma Bear-it! Hope it sticks. She must be in a coma NOT to recognize this world has changed while she sequesters in herCatholic hide-away with her handler.
Scary that I almost never disagree with you. How about advocating for a boycott of Morton’s? If people make these justices lives miserable by keeping them prisoners in their houses it might knock some sense into them. They may not be welcome at their favorite restaurants.
I hope this is a teachable moment for Mortons (and Landry's, its parent). They have every right to hope that their business runs without controversy. But the protest happened. Telling the protesters they were "devoid of decency" betrays a breathtaking level of insensitivity and misogyny. I hope that someone in Morton's corporate office is having a conversation about, "How did we get this so wrong?" and what can we do to ensure that we don't insult women in the future. Barring that, choosing not to patronize Morton's is everyone's right.
I’m getting tired of teachable moments and thoughts and prayers. We need to light fires under people to motivate them to vote in November. I’m concerned that the Democratic Party isn’t doing enough. We need more James Carvilles to call them out everyday.
I would love to learn that businesses are refusing the patronage of the members of the “Supreme” Court majority. Let them have a taste of what it’s like for the little people. Of course, that would req some backbone, so such a movement is most likely to start in some small corner store.
A bounty has been placed on the privacy of women, now is the time to place a bounty on, not only the justices, but using the power of the vote, on Republicans at every level of government. From school boards to Senators they must be voted out of office. Now is the time for all good women and men to come to the rescue of our country. Lets demand forceful and courageous leadership from all candidates, united in the rescue of our Democracy.
In all the uproar in the right wing about citizens protesting in front of Supreme Court justices’ residences, little has been said about the fact that it was the Supreme Court ITSELF that legitimized peaceful protest on this very subject, when on June 26, 2014 it stuck down a Massachusetts law mandating a 35 foot buffer zone around clinics that provided abortion services. That law had been enacted because 2 people were shot & killed & 5 others were wounded at abortion clinics in 1994.
In McCullen vs Coakly, the SC said that the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law infringed on the First Amendment rights of protesters!
Evidently picketing & harassing women seeking maternal health is allowed; but SC justices are so delicate that they must be protected from seeing or hearing any citizens express their First Amendment rights.
The Massachusetts law was enacted to protect clinic entrants from screaming, pushing protesters and violent ones, yet the Court struck it down. Now they want actually peaceful protesters shut down because it’s unpleasant for them to be reminded of the harm they are doing.
After riding roughshod over the rest of us, declaring that we have no right to privacy, the InJustices have no business claiming such rights for themselves.
Jul 9, 2022·edited Jul 9, 2022Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Happy to hear you are well onto the path of recovery. We honor you by reading and acknowledging what you are writing, and hopefully contributing to the mainstream.
In that spirit, Alexandria Petri of WaPo delivers her brand of satirical journalism with underlying truths about the Morton/Kavanaugh dining experience which aligns exactly with yours:
Great essay! I note that I hand't seen the WaPo piece before I wrote my newsletter, which just goes to show that Morton's statement was so ludicrous that the response writes itself.
So, protesters might not be legally permitted to protest outside of courts or justices' homes, but when they spot one outside of the protected zone and try to be heard there they are violating rules of decency? What's left? Polite yard signs on the route between the justices' homes and court?
Dear Robert—I started reading your letters while teaching in India a few years ago. My husband and I have chosen to retire abroad and now live in Portugal. Since truly becoming a global citizen, it has been interesting and enlightening to see my home country through a worldview lens. Thank you for all you do with your clear analysis, succinct and erudite letters. I depend on your help to understand the background and possibilities of today’s politics and law. Bravo. You are much appreciated.
Thank you. I have many opinions and would like to share. Your letter and Heather Cox Richardson’s make for a perfect tag team to help, this old lady learn what I ———- wait for I—————-was never taught in school.
As Biden said in his speech, "Women of America can determine the outcome of the issue." But under the circumstances, in the face of an illegitimate Supreme Court dominated by dishonest, extreme rightwing religious zealots, women could use "a little help from their friends," namely the men who love them and regard them as fellow citizens entitled to equal rights under the law. Rising up together as full partners, colleagues, friends, lovers, coworkers, neighbors, parents and grandparents, men and women standing shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity, can make America sane and just again by voting the extreme, misogynous Republican faction of demagoguery and deceit seeking to destroy democracy out of power. Robert Hubbell has articulated the strategy. It's up to us, We the People, to deploy the tactical remedy--VOTE CHOICE!
Political speeches used to last hours, and people came to hear them like rock concerts. That’s because speakers knew how to deliver the rhetorical goods.
I’m not suggesting we return to this long form, but God, it would be nice if more politicians had a passing familiarity with the English language.
I like Biden. I don't think he's a bad speaker. He does have a speech impediment I cringe for when it occurs mainly because I can just hear all the junior high mentality critics making fun... But consider how Trump spoke - sometimes adopting a back woods preacher's cadences which sound phony and formulaic to me, at other times ranting in long sequences of fragments and repetition - and how much people loved to hear him (well, Some people). I don't think the public embrace of the form of the speech is something to rely upon for evaluations of merit. Also, I expect the demise of the "rock star" treatment for political speakers arises more from there now being alternative entertainments.
I'm not criticizing his delivery. I get that he's got a speech impediment. I only read the transcript and saw some weak, milk-and-water abstractions where we needed a muse of fire.
This is what you get when people stop learning to recite poetry in school. Our language becomes a threadbare rag stitched together with corporate platitudes.
Oh, I was not intending to imply that your criticism was influenced by his speech impediment. I feel like his speeches do sometimes rise to the level of pretty good delivery with appropriate cadences that permit the mind of the listener to focus more effectively on the meaning instead of the form (the best and often under appreciated aspect of good speech delivery) and do recognize that his delivery relies on the intellectual agreement of the listener to carry them along instead of an emotional sweep: A reinforcing instead of a persuasive effect. All of that. It's just that I fear democrats too often let the perfect (to paraphrase the saw) be an enemy of the better than the alternative. Oh, I subscribe to my poem a day (and usually read them too!) but when it comes to speeches I prefer content and perceived earnestness to showmanship and poetic phrases but I would certainly embrace a bit more fire and often bemoan the lack of catchy phrases that lend themselves to repetition because there are a range of tastes, personalities, intellectual preferences and so on out there and we need them all to be moved. That said, I am Prostrate with gratitude he isn't Trump.
What puzzles me is really what is behind this dissolution of R vs W. You know most of these judges really couldn’t care less if some poor woman gets an abortion. Do you think Kavanaugh would have cared had he gotten someone pregnant in his heyday of raping young women? So just what’s in it for them? It’s not like they are voted in by the trump religious right and need to pander to that cult. And you know they are eyeing full stop abortion, penalties for going out of the country, gay marriage and gay adoption and eventually maybe forced attendance at an Evangelical Christian church. Religion is actually lessening in this country, especially the younger generations. We are flying in the face of all other modern western countries because of six men and why, for what ulterior reason? We are not the Middle East with Sharia law and religion ruling the entire government..at least not yet.
I always suspect a monetary gain when I see something unjust; some deep pocket organizations. Would love to know your thoughts. And get well soon. I love your newsletter. It’s the best.
You ask questions that may be unanswerable, but I believe that Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett are motivated by Catholic theology. I believe Alito and Barrett are members of Catholic cults (Opus Dei and People of Praise, respectively.) See this article re Alito: https://tnn.religion.catholic.narkive.com/N9YM6kJL/alito-and-opus-dei-jackboots-of-the-church . A story out in Rolling Stone yesterday links to a video tape of a right-wing religious leader saying that she has prayed with Supreme Court justices in the Court's chambers. The organization condemns the RS article as a lie, but has no explanation for why the leader of the group told someone that fact "off the record" when she was being recorded by a passerby.
And yet I read an article that said the Catholic church until somewhat recently actually permitted abortion until quickening, so if that is their actual motivation they are surprisingly uninformed on their own religious history.
But then I would ask why would Dow Chemical and Exxon, Shell etc. care about abortion? Unless it’s about keeping business and tax friendly Congress people in power, as they are usually republicans and that also means conservatives and that means pandering to the religious base.
I think you just hit the nail on the head Wendy. This is the main goal of the Kochs and the rest of the oil oligarchs. Take the power away from the EPA and give it to the states so they can pollute to their hearts content. They don’t care about abortion. I wonder if overturning Roe was collateral damage, knowing that it was a selling point for their purchase of the politicians who would appoint their designated Supreme Court Justices that would dismantle the EPA. That said, for the politicians and religious zealots that support taking away a women’s right to choose, I believe it’s all about controlling women. And the women, like Handmaiden Amy believe that women should be controlled.
I agree Mary, harshly and cynically, I wonder how male members of the Supreme Court, the house and senate had paid for abortions or thought about paying for abortions.
Their stance is don't do as I do, do as I say."
Also, I wonder how those who have wives, sisters, daughters and female friends will feel should a spontaneous miscarriage happens and they are prosecuted and possible lose their lives due to complications from the pregnancy.
When you next cover Cipollone's Jan 6 appearance, consider mentioning if Trump is paying for his attorneys and the implications, either way. (no need to reply to me)
Thanks for all that you are doing. Hope you test negative soon.
From a devoted fan,
Lionel Spiro, Chappaquiddick Island, Edgartown, MA
That is a good question. If so, it would be another indication that Cipollone's loyalty lies with Trump, not the United States government that he was hired to advise as White House Counsel.
It wouldn't hurt if someone were to provide a list of who is paying legal fees for all of those providing testimony. Better yet, they should state that right up front or at the end of the testimony. It is clearly relevant to how we judge the content.
I pray that each extremist Justice never eats a peaceful meal in public again (or for that matter can move through the public square without notice). This is the curse they have brought upon themselves. They are NOT above the laws of our land. Thank goodness for the power of social media and the swift gathering of protestors who still have the “right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And any restaurant or business that protects these monsters should be boycotted.
Right on as always. There’s no turning back from the fact Kavanaugh took the position he did . And he also bought all that goes with it. Too bad a $200 bottle of wine doesn’t come with instructions for insight . Feel better and let your good sense do it’s job while you have a restful weekend!
Thanks so much for the GREAT analogy. Noblesse oblige has always been blind to the real world most of us live in. Kavanaugh’s smug meanness assaults women daily; if going out the back door of Morton’s is the worst thing that could possibly happen to him, I can only imagine the wrath he will misplace on “‘the other” for embarrassing him so. His temperament, as revealed at his hearings, doesn’t allow for dissent. The poor women he assaulted in his past know that full well. I bet his family does too.
This is a good first step by the Biden Administration, but as you pointed out, what is Kamala doing, “standing behind her man”. Wrong, wrong,wrong!
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. But his delivery of this important speech was uneven and wooden. He needs to get out of the White House and meet with the people where they live; he is better in that format. If his advisers believe he is not up to a grueling road schedule, they (and Biden) need to reflect on that fact.
Robert, you wrote: "Biden has finally cast the struggle in the right language: A choice between the “mainstream and the extreme” views held by the Democratic and Republican parties. He needs to keep it up and allow others in his administration to assist in carrying the message forward. (VP Kamala Harris and HHS Secretary Becerra stood silently behind Biden as he delivered his remarks. Why?)"
As I watched him speak, I couldn't help but observe what you noted, that Harris and Becerra were standing silent behind him...and also that Harris looked as if she could chew nails and was literally spoiling for a fight. Even as he spoke, I wished that Harris had been at that podium. I also wondered if his belated and overdue address had been made because SHE might have pushed for it. I also wondered why she is always in the background and never out in front. On this issue of all issues, HER voice would not only have been strong and forceful but would have resonated with WOMEN. Surely Biden knows that. At least, that's my two cents on the matter.
Yard sign: ROE ROE ROE YOUR VOTE Vote Choice Nov. 8
I’ll put one on my balcony, even though I’m in Massachusetts, where the pro-Roe majority is overwhelming.
Ha ha. What a beaut! Can we copy that? Bumper sticker ready, too! We all have a new name for Amy Coney Barrett— Amy Coma Bear-it! Hope it sticks. She must be in a coma NOT to recognize this world has changed while she sequesters in herCatholic hide-away with her handler.
I call her Amy Coney Island! I sincerely mean no offense to the Coney Island itself. It’s just merely a play on words.
Well done.
Scary that I almost never disagree with you. How about advocating for a boycott of Morton’s? If people make these justices lives miserable by keeping them prisoners in their houses it might knock some sense into them. They may not be welcome at their favorite restaurants.
I hope this is a teachable moment for Mortons (and Landry's, its parent). They have every right to hope that their business runs without controversy. But the protest happened. Telling the protesters they were "devoid of decency" betrays a breathtaking level of insensitivity and misogyny. I hope that someone in Morton's corporate office is having a conversation about, "How did we get this so wrong?" and what can we do to ensure that we don't insult women in the future. Barring that, choosing not to patronize Morton's is everyone's right.
I’m getting tired of teachable moments and thoughts and prayers. We need to light fires under people to motivate them to vote in November. I’m concerned that the Democratic Party isn’t doing enough. We need more James Carvilles to call them out everyday.
I would love to learn that businesses are refusing the patronage of the members of the “Supreme” Court majority. Let them have a taste of what it’s like for the little people. Of course, that would req some backbone, so such a movement is most likely to start in some small corner store.
That was my first thought, Beth.
A bounty has been placed on the privacy of women, now is the time to place a bounty on, not only the justices, but using the power of the vote, on Republicans at every level of government. From school boards to Senators they must be voted out of office. Now is the time for all good women and men to come to the rescue of our country. Lets demand forceful and courageous leadership from all candidates, united in the rescue of our Democracy.
In all the uproar in the right wing about citizens protesting in front of Supreme Court justices’ residences, little has been said about the fact that it was the Supreme Court ITSELF that legitimized peaceful protest on this very subject, when on June 26, 2014 it stuck down a Massachusetts law mandating a 35 foot buffer zone around clinics that provided abortion services. That law had been enacted because 2 people were shot & killed & 5 others were wounded at abortion clinics in 1994.
In McCullen vs Coakly, the SC said that the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law infringed on the First Amendment rights of protesters!
Evidently picketing & harassing women seeking maternal health is allowed; but SC justices are so delicate that they must be protected from seeing or hearing any citizens express their First Amendment rights.
The Massachusetts law was enacted to protect clinic entrants from screaming, pushing protesters and violent ones, yet the Court struck it down. Now they want actually peaceful protesters shut down because it’s unpleasant for them to be reminded of the harm they are doing.
I just have a hard time drumming up any sympathy for the high court justices having to deal with the consequences of their actions.
After riding roughshod over the rest of us, declaring that we have no right to privacy, the InJustices have no business claiming such rights for themselves.
Happy to hear you are well onto the path of recovery. We honor you by reading and acknowledging what you are writing, and hopefully contributing to the mainstream.
In that spirit, Alexandria Petri of WaPo delivers her brand of satirical journalism with underlying truths about the Morton/Kavanaugh dining experience which aligns exactly with yours:
https://wapo.st/3uA6nz3
By the way, here is an article about the Supreme Court Marshal's plea to the governors of Virginia and Maryland to "crackdown on protesters":
https://www.nationandstate.com/2022/07/03/the-supreme-court-marshal-urges-states-to-crackdown-on-protesters/
Great essay! I note that I hand't seen the WaPo piece before I wrote my newsletter, which just goes to show that Morton's statement was so ludicrous that the response writes itself.
So, protesters might not be legally permitted to protest outside of courts or justices' homes, but when they spot one outside of the protected zone and try to be heard there they are violating rules of decency? What's left? Polite yard signs on the route between the justices' homes and court?
I think it's one of her best satires ever -- and I've been a fan for years.
I "discovered" her a little over a year ago, MaryB. Sorry to have missed all those prior years!
I’m grateful to have discovered YOU a few years back.
Thank you so much, MaryB. And I you. We've been on this road for sometime now, haven't we.
Thank you for that link! I laughed until I cried!
Dear Robert—I started reading your letters while teaching in India a few years ago. My husband and I have chosen to retire abroad and now live in Portugal. Since truly becoming a global citizen, it has been interesting and enlightening to see my home country through a worldview lens. Thank you for all you do with your clear analysis, succinct and erudite letters. I depend on your help to understand the background and possibilities of today’s politics and law. Bravo. You are much appreciated.
It is an honor to have you as a reader. Please feel free to write with your perspective from abroad. It might enlighten my thinking!
Thank you. I have many opinions and would like to share. Your letter and Heather Cox Richardson’s make for a perfect tag team to help, this old lady learn what I ———- wait for I—————-was never taught in school.
Well said, as usual, Robert. Thank you.
Feel better soon.
As Biden said in his speech, "Women of America can determine the outcome of the issue." But under the circumstances, in the face of an illegitimate Supreme Court dominated by dishonest, extreme rightwing religious zealots, women could use "a little help from their friends," namely the men who love them and regard them as fellow citizens entitled to equal rights under the law. Rising up together as full partners, colleagues, friends, lovers, coworkers, neighbors, parents and grandparents, men and women standing shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity, can make America sane and just again by voting the extreme, misogynous Republican faction of demagoguery and deceit seeking to destroy democracy out of power. Robert Hubbell has articulated the strategy. It's up to us, We the People, to deploy the tactical remedy--VOTE CHOICE!
Political speeches used to last hours, and people came to hear them like rock concerts. That’s because speakers knew how to deliver the rhetorical goods.
I’m not suggesting we return to this long form, but God, it would be nice if more politicians had a passing familiarity with the English language.
I like Biden. I don't think he's a bad speaker. He does have a speech impediment I cringe for when it occurs mainly because I can just hear all the junior high mentality critics making fun... But consider how Trump spoke - sometimes adopting a back woods preacher's cadences which sound phony and formulaic to me, at other times ranting in long sequences of fragments and repetition - and how much people loved to hear him (well, Some people). I don't think the public embrace of the form of the speech is something to rely upon for evaluations of merit. Also, I expect the demise of the "rock star" treatment for political speakers arises more from there now being alternative entertainments.
I'm not criticizing his delivery. I get that he's got a speech impediment. I only read the transcript and saw some weak, milk-and-water abstractions where we needed a muse of fire.
This is what you get when people stop learning to recite poetry in school. Our language becomes a threadbare rag stitched together with corporate platitudes.
Oh, I was not intending to imply that your criticism was influenced by his speech impediment. I feel like his speeches do sometimes rise to the level of pretty good delivery with appropriate cadences that permit the mind of the listener to focus more effectively on the meaning instead of the form (the best and often under appreciated aspect of good speech delivery) and do recognize that his delivery relies on the intellectual agreement of the listener to carry them along instead of an emotional sweep: A reinforcing instead of a persuasive effect. All of that. It's just that I fear democrats too often let the perfect (to paraphrase the saw) be an enemy of the better than the alternative. Oh, I subscribe to my poem a day (and usually read them too!) but when it comes to speeches I prefer content and perceived earnestness to showmanship and poetic phrases but I would certainly embrace a bit more fire and often bemoan the lack of catchy phrases that lend themselves to repetition because there are a range of tastes, personalities, intellectual preferences and so on out there and we need them all to be moved. That said, I am Prostrate with gratitude he isn't Trump.
This is a great column, Robert. Thanks for the extra edition!
What puzzles me is really what is behind this dissolution of R vs W. You know most of these judges really couldn’t care less if some poor woman gets an abortion. Do you think Kavanaugh would have cared had he gotten someone pregnant in his heyday of raping young women? So just what’s in it for them? It’s not like they are voted in by the trump religious right and need to pander to that cult. And you know they are eyeing full stop abortion, penalties for going out of the country, gay marriage and gay adoption and eventually maybe forced attendance at an Evangelical Christian church. Religion is actually lessening in this country, especially the younger generations. We are flying in the face of all other modern western countries because of six men and why, for what ulterior reason? We are not the Middle East with Sharia law and religion ruling the entire government..at least not yet.
I always suspect a monetary gain when I see something unjust; some deep pocket organizations. Would love to know your thoughts. And get well soon. I love your newsletter. It’s the best.
You ask questions that may be unanswerable, but I believe that Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett are motivated by Catholic theology. I believe Alito and Barrett are members of Catholic cults (Opus Dei and People of Praise, respectively.) See this article re Alito: https://tnn.religion.catholic.narkive.com/N9YM6kJL/alito-and-opus-dei-jackboots-of-the-church . A story out in Rolling Stone yesterday links to a video tape of a right-wing religious leader saying that she has prayed with Supreme Court justices in the Court's chambers. The organization condemns the RS article as a lie, but has no explanation for why the leader of the group told someone that fact "off the record" when she was being recorded by a passerby.
And yet I read an article that said the Catholic church until somewhat recently actually permitted abortion until quickening, so if that is their actual motivation they are surprisingly uninformed on their own religious history.
Koch Brothers (oil) and Heritage Foundation (Dow Chemical) fund The Federalist Society which chose those 6 judges.
But then I would ask why would Dow Chemical and Exxon, Shell etc. care about abortion? Unless it’s about keeping business and tax friendly Congress people in power, as they are usually republicans and that also means conservatives and that means pandering to the religious base.
And the ability of each state to eliminate regulations/EPA.
I think you just hit the nail on the head Wendy. This is the main goal of the Kochs and the rest of the oil oligarchs. Take the power away from the EPA and give it to the states so they can pollute to their hearts content. They don’t care about abortion. I wonder if overturning Roe was collateral damage, knowing that it was a selling point for their purchase of the politicians who would appoint their designated Supreme Court Justices that would dismantle the EPA. That said, for the politicians and religious zealots that support taking away a women’s right to choose, I believe it’s all about controlling women. And the women, like Handmaiden Amy believe that women should be controlled.
Yup.
Follow the money, especially for Kavanaugh.
Oooo... I'd say especially for Alito or at least for Kavanaugh and Alito. Alito has a long history of shamelessly accepting obvious bribes.
I agree Mary, harshly and cynically, I wonder how male members of the Supreme Court, the house and senate had paid for abortions or thought about paying for abortions.
Their stance is don't do as I do, do as I say."
Also, I wonder how those who have wives, sisters, daughters and female friends will feel should a spontaneous miscarriage happens and they are prosecuted and possible lose their lives due to complications from the pregnancy.
When you next cover Cipollone's Jan 6 appearance, consider mentioning if Trump is paying for his attorneys and the implications, either way. (no need to reply to me)
Thanks for all that you are doing. Hope you test negative soon.
From a devoted fan,
Lionel Spiro, Chappaquiddick Island, Edgartown, MA
That is a good question. If so, it would be another indication that Cipollone's loyalty lies with Trump, not the United States government that he was hired to advise as White House Counsel.
It wouldn't hurt if someone were to provide a list of who is paying legal fees for all of those providing testimony. Better yet, they should state that right up front or at the end of the testimony. It is clearly relevant to how we judge the content.
I pray that each extremist Justice never eats a peaceful meal in public again (or for that matter can move through the public square without notice). This is the curse they have brought upon themselves. They are NOT above the laws of our land. Thank goodness for the power of social media and the swift gathering of protestors who still have the “right to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” And any restaurant or business that protects these monsters should be boycotted.
Right on as always. There’s no turning back from the fact Kavanaugh took the position he did . And he also bought all that goes with it. Too bad a $200 bottle of wine doesn’t come with instructions for insight . Feel better and let your good sense do it’s job while you have a restful weekend!
Thanks so much for the GREAT analogy. Noblesse oblige has always been blind to the real world most of us live in. Kavanaugh’s smug meanness assaults women daily; if going out the back door of Morton’s is the worst thing that could possibly happen to him, I can only imagine the wrath he will misplace on “‘the other” for embarrassing him so. His temperament, as revealed at his hearings, doesn’t allow for dissent. The poor women he assaulted in his past know that full well. I bet his family does too.
This is a good first step by the Biden Administration, but as you pointed out, what is Kamala doing, “standing behind her man”. Wrong, wrong,wrong!
I am a big fan of Joe Biden. But his delivery of this important speech was uneven and wooden. He needs to get out of the White House and meet with the people where they live; he is better in that format. If his advisers believe he is not up to a grueling road schedule, they (and Biden) need to reflect on that fact.
Robert, you wrote: "Biden has finally cast the struggle in the right language: A choice between the “mainstream and the extreme” views held by the Democratic and Republican parties. He needs to keep it up and allow others in his administration to assist in carrying the message forward. (VP Kamala Harris and HHS Secretary Becerra stood silently behind Biden as he delivered his remarks. Why?)"
As I watched him speak, I couldn't help but observe what you noted, that Harris and Becerra were standing silent behind him...and also that Harris looked as if she could chew nails and was literally spoiling for a fight. Even as he spoke, I wished that Harris had been at that podium. I also wondered if his belated and overdue address had been made because SHE might have pushed for it. I also wondered why she is always in the background and never out in front. On this issue of all issues, HER voice would not only have been strong and forceful but would have resonated with WOMEN. Surely Biden knows that. At least, that's my two cents on the matter.
You Go! Robert Hubbell. Who else could have thought of such a great retort? Worth all my subscription fees! You Go! Robert Hubbell.