Global statesman vs convicted criminal

June 14, 2024

President Biden was engaging in statecraft of the highest order at the G-7 summit to advance global peace and security at the very moment convicted criminal Trump was meeting with co-conspirators near the site of their failed insurrection. The competing tableaus could not have been starker: Global peace and security or a season of political revenge. That juxtaposition should tell us all we need to know about who America’s next president should be. It’s up to us to ensure that Biden is reelected.

---

President Biden leads at the G-7 summit

President Biden met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the G-7 and took the opportunity to announce a ten-year security agreement between the US and Ukraine. Biden also touted $50 billion in aid to Ukraine from countries holding frozen Russian assets. The aid to Ukraine will be funded by interest on the frozen Russia assets in the custody of banks in the G7 and European Union. See The Guardian, Joe Biden says ‘democracies can deliver’ as G7 agree $50bn Ukraine aid deal.

Under the ten-year security agreement, the US would assist Ukraine by

providing weapons and ammunition; expanding intelligence-sharing; continuing to train brave Ukrainian troops at bases in Europe and the United States; enhancing interoperability between our militaries in line with NATO standards; investing in Ukraine’s defense industrial base they can supply their own weapons and munitions; working with Ukraine’s partners to build a future force that is strong, sustainable, and resilient; and supporting Ukraine’s economic recovery as well as its energy recovery.

President Biden also announced a new round of sanctions against hundreds of individuals and companies that continue to assist Russia in its war against the Ukrainian people.

President Zelensky noted that the “historic agreement” was the “strongest” since its founding in 1991. He thanked President Biden and “every American heart that does not betray freedom.”

---

Supreme Court rejects challenge to availability of mifepristone

On Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that anti-choice extremists lacked standing to challenge the distribution of mifepristone. In the short term, the ruling was a victory for reproductive liberty. But there are disturbing aspects of the ruling that make clear the Supreme Court is not turning its back on anti-choice agenda of the reactionary majority on the Court.

Before discussing the “merits” of this case, it is worth noting the following:

• The case was a sham from start to finish, a fabricated controversy designed to fast-track challenges by anti-choice extremists to the Supreme Court

• The anti-choice plaintiffs were encouraged to file a sham lawsuit because the Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to overrule settled precedent to advance the religious agenda of the Federalist Society

• The Supreme Court failed to reprimand the district court judge—Matthew Kacsmaryk—for issuing a lawless nationwide injunction against an FDA approved drug.

So, let’s look at the central issue in the case: “Standing.”

The US Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over “cases and controversies” arising under US laws.

Courts have interpreted the “case and controversy” requirement to mean that the plaintiffs must have a concrete interest in the subject of the lawsuit—i.e., actual or impending injury or impingement of a right or liberty. This requirement is known as “standing.”

Standing is important because it prevents parties from creating imagined controversies that result in “advisory” opinions from federal courts. As a matter of American jurisprudence, courts should decide only those issues necessary to resolve actual disputes—and nothing more.

Here, a group of doctors asserted standing to challenge the use of mifepristone on two grounds: First, by claiming that some women might suffer complications from the use of mifepristone, which might divert the doctors from attending to other patients. Second, the doctors claimed that the use of mifepristone denied them the joy of delivering babies.

All nine justices rejected the sham standing theory accepted by Judge Kacsmaryk and a panel of the Fifth Circuit. The opinion is here: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Despite the unanimity in rejecting the ludicrous standing argument, the opinion should satisfy no one—as made clear by Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court’s abortion pill ruling should satisfy nobody.

Stern and Lithwick write,

On Thursday, the Supreme Court did the bare minimum necessary to operate like an actual court of law, unanimously throwing out an absurd and dangerous lawsuit against medication abortion. The justices do not deserve extra credit for refusing to embrace this deeply unserious litigation, and they should earn no gold stars for maintaining the legal status quo on abortion pills. They merely acted as minimally responsible adults in a room of sugared-up preschoolers, shutting down the lower courts’ lawless rampage over all known rules of standing in desperate pursuit of an anti-abortion agenda.

Defenders of reproductive liberty have reason to breathe a sigh of relief today but no reason to relent in our efforts to reform the Court. Today, the Supreme Court refused to endorse lunacy. That is no ground for celebration.

---

More corruption from Justice Thomas

The Senate Judiciary Committee discovered that Harlan Crow provided Justice Clarence Thomas additional luxury travel on three occasions—none of which have been disclosed by Thomas as required by federal regulations. See Pro Publica, Harlan Crow Provided Clarence Thomas Additional Private Jet Flights: Senate Investigators.

Pro Publica previously reported undisclosed luxury vacations, travel, and other gifts provided by Harlan Crow to Justice Thomas. The prior reporting by Pro Publica resulted in reluctant, tardy, and incomplete disclosures by Thomas, who amended earlier filings that fraudulently omitted items that should have been disclosed over the last decade. Thomas claimed that he “inadvertently omitted” hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel and luxury vacations from federal disclosure forms.

Thomas originally claimed that travel by private jet fell within the “personal hospitality” exception to the reporting requirements. The federal Judicial Conference closed that loophole last year—but Thomas failed to update his forms to disclose the trips identified by the Judiciary Committee today.

In sum, Justice Thomas reports lavish gifts only when he is caught failing to report them. He then claims the failure to disclose was a “mistake”—despite an unbroken pattern of failing to disclose luxury travel and vacations from Harlan Crow. The most reasonable interpretation of the facts is that Justice Thomas is corrupt and dishonest. And Chief Justice John Roberts is fine with that.

The reactionary majority has destroyed the legitimacy of the Court both by disrespecting the rule of law and the ethical norms that apply to the justices entrusted with interpreting the Constitution.

---

Trump meets with congressional Republicans

Congressional Republicans met with Trump near the Capitol on Thursday. The convicted felon’s behavior was erratic and worrisome. Attendees likened Trump's behavior to that of a “drunk uncle” at a family reunion.

Some of Trump's comments were just bizarre and inappropriate. He claimed (falsely) that one of Nancy Pelosi’s daughters said that the former Speaker and the former president would have been a good match “under different circumstances.” He wondered why Taylor Swift “would endorse that dope,” referring to Joe Biden. (Swift hasn’t endorsed Biden in 2024.) He said that some wives wouldn’t care if their husbands had been shot like Steve Scalise was in 2017. (Sounds like Trump is projecting his relationship with Melania onto Steve Scalise’s relationship with his wife.) See NOTUS, ‘Like Talking to Your Drunk Uncle’: Trump’s Closed-Door Rant to House Republicans.

On policy issues, Trump railed against Biden for promoting electric vehicles, which Trump called “the dumbest thing ever.”

He set off a firestorm by saying that Milwaukee—the site of the Republican National Convention—is a “horrible city.” See Wisconsin Examiner, Trump tells House Republicans Milwaukee is a ‘horrible city.

But the most shocking, ignorant statement by Trump was a proposal to replace the federal income tax with a tariff on imports. See CNBC, Trump floats eliminating U.S. income tax and replacing it with tariffs on imports.

The idea of replacing income taxes with tariffs rivals Trump's proposal to “inject bleach” to fight Covid. Replacing an income tax with tariffs would result in a massive tax increase for most Americans while providing a massive tax decrease for the most affluent taxpayers.

Moreover, the idea is delusional. Income taxes raise $2 trillion annually; the US imports only $3.4 trillion in goods. To replace the income tax, Trump would need to impose a more than 100% tariff on all imports—which would raise the price of goods, fuel inflation, and punish poor and middle-class consumers! See Market Watch, Trump floats replacing income taxes with tariffs, gets criticized by economists.

In short, as one critic said, Trump’s idea is “unserious.” That’s a problem. Having the president of the world’s largest economy propose unserious ideas on the fly is a recipe for market volatility and uncertainty—neither of which are good for business. Despite having spent a lifetime in (failed) real estate ventures, Trump knows nothing about economics. He is not only a threat to democracy but also a threat to the nation’s financial stability.

---

---

Concluding Thoughts

Sigh. I watched a segment on MSNBC where Alex Wagner and a guest explained that Biden’s path to victory depends on three states. Such analysis is wrong, dangerous, and counterproductive.

It is wrong because it presumes that Biden will win in states where he currently leads and lose in states where he currently trails. We would be fools to assume that Biden can’t gain or lose ground in any state. So, we must stop pretending that the election is frozen in amber except for three swing states. Wrong. False, Misleading. Dangerous.

It is also wrong because it diminishes the importance of voters in other states. Does Alex Wagner believe that votes in California do not matter because Biden leads in that state? What message is she sending when she features a guest to endorse the theory that three states will decide the election? That everyone else can sit out?

Worse, even if the vote count in the Electoral College is close, the popular vote will also matter. A Biden victory by 20 votes in the Electoral College with a two million popular vote margin looks a lot closer than a Biden victory of 20 votes in the Electoral College with a fifteen million popular vote margin.

Finally, Biden isn’t the only candidate on the ballot in 2024. A Biden victory where Democrats lose the House and Senate will be a hollow victory. A Biden victory where Democrats lose ground in state legislatures would be equally disappointing. Turnout matters, even in “non-swing” states.

Every vote counts in every district in every state and in every race on the ballot. The “swing state” narrative is toxic to democracy and discourages turnout. Knock it off! Looking at you, Alex Wagner!

Should Democrats consider key races, districts, and states when allocating resources and planning strategy? Absolutely! But reducing the 2024 election to a “handful of states” or “three Senate races” cannot become the dominant narrative. Republicans clawed their way back from near extinction by focusing on every race up and down the ballot for decades. We ignore that lesson at our peril.

So, for those of you who are knocking yourselves out to support candidates up and down the ballot in “non-swing” states, keep up the good work! You are the secret to the Democratic Party's long-term ascendancy and the redemption of democracy—regardless of what high-paid consultants tell us.

We can leave nothing on the field of battle. And that field reaches every corner of America!

Talk to you tomorrow!