Today’s Edition: Call for volunteers.

June 16, 2021

          NATO leaders gave Joe Biden a warm welcome on Monday. No surprise in that. The contrast between Biden and Trump was reason enough for celebration. In 2017, Trump told a German newspaper that NATO was “obsolete” because it was “designed many, many years ago.” During Biden’s meeting with NATO leaders on Monday, he called the collective defense commitment of NATO a “sacred obligation.” See Axios, “Biden at NATO summit: Collective defense is "sacred obligation". Republicans could not contain their anger over an American president who is held in high regard by global leaders. The ill-tempered Jim Jordan tweeted, “While Biden pals around with his buddies in Europe, the border crisis rages at home.” See Business Insider, “GOP Rep. Jim Jordan rips into Joe Biden for attending the same G-7, NATO summits with US allies that Trump went to multiple times.”

          As he did at the G-7 meeting, Biden urged NATO allies to increase their vigilance over the threat posed by China. It was a tough sales job because NATO members are more concerned about the threat from Russia. See CNN, “Biden pushes China threat at G7 and NATO, but European leaders tread carefully.” E.U. members want to work with China on climate change and trade issues and, accordingly, are reluctant to provoke China by taking a tough stand on the growing tensions between China and the U.S. The same nations are more supportive of Biden’s tough talk about Russia—an adversary with whom they share a continent.

          Biden will meet Putin on Wednesday in Geneva. Both have taken to the airwaves to “prepare the battlefield” for their meeting. See, e.g., CNBC, “Biden warns Putin ahead of summit: Navalny's death would hurt Russia's standing,” and NBC, “Putin dismisses charges of hacking and suppressing dissent by claiming U.S. does same thing.” We should expect the summit to be a “draw” in the sense that neither party will concede an inch. But the very fact that Biden is going into the summit from a position of strength is refreshing. Trump’s meetings with Putin always left the impression that Putin was blackmailing Trump.

          Biden continues to impress on his first international trip. The gaffes are minor and almost endearing. Biden and Boris Johnson had a moment of confusion when Biden erroneously prompted Johnson to introduce the South African President. (Johnson had already done so.) Compare Biden’s mistaken effort to be polite to the South African President to Trump shoving the Prime Minister of Montenegro to ensure that Trump was front and center in a photo opportunity. Whatever happens, America is in better hands with Biden in charge of our foreign policy.

Mitch McConnell says the quiet part out loud.

          Anyone paying attention to Mitch McConnell should have assumed that he would never allow a Democratic president to appoint a Supreme Court Justice again. On Monday, he confirmed that fact.  See Talking Points Memo, “McConnell’s New SCOTUS Threat: Maybe We Won’t Confirm Any Justices For 18 Months!” Of course, McConnell’s threat presumes that he will be Senate Majority leader after the 2022 midterm elections.

          What reason did McConnell give for stripping Biden of his constitutional role in appointing Supreme Court justices? The reason doesn’t matter because McConnell will make up a new rule to satisfy whatever scenario he encounters. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, “Believe Mitch McConnell: Republicans Will Never Confirm Another Democrat-Appointed Supreme Court Justice.” The simple rule articulated by Stern in Slate is right: When Republicans control the Senate, they will not confirm a Supreme Court Justice nominated by a Democratic president. Such a rule defiles the Constitution.

          McConnell’s admission makes plain that Republicans are prepared to vary the size of the Supreme Court at McConnell’s whim. If a vacancy occurs during Biden’s term, McConnell will reduce the size of the Court to eight until (and unless) a Republican president is elected. When (if) that occurs, McConnell will increase the size of the Court to nine. (Again, all of this is contingent on McConnell being Majority Leader.)

          In the face of McConnell’s admission, Democrats should put aside any qualms about enlarging the Court. Whenever I make that suggestion, some readers write to say that enlarging the Court for partisan purposes will undermine its legitimacy. It is far too late for that. McConnell has made clear that the GOP views the Court as its personal property to be used for political advantage. Let’s not pretend otherwise—and let’s not allow Republicans to play by one set of rules while Democrats cling to an idealized view of the Court that no longer exists. The sooner we accept that the Court has changed, the sooner Democrats can get back to the task of protecting civil liberties for all Americans, not just the religious right. We must act with urgency. The Court’s religious right is doing so. See FiveThirtyEight, “Why The Supreme Court May Be Poised To Deliver The Religious Right A Big Victory.”

DOJ Spying Scandal.

          Merrick Garland held an “off-the-record” meeting with three news organizations spied on by the DOJ. See Politico, “Garland meets news executives over leak probe tactics.” The “off-the-record” nature of the meeting prevented the media organizations from reporting on the meeting—effectively extending the “gag orders” that prevented those same organizations from reporting on the subpoenas in the first instance. As a result, the American public has no idea what Merrick Garland said in private to the victims of DOJ’s spying. Instead, Garland released a written statement that discussed prospective reforms:

          [T]he department will no longer use compulsory process to obtain reporters' source information when they are doing their jobs. In the coming weeks, the Attorney General will develop and distribute to the field a memo detailing the current policy. The Attorney General is committed to working with members of the news media to codify the memo setting out these new rules into regulation.

          Garland’s efforts seem more like damage control than an effort to rebuild trust in the DOJ. Indeed, it seems the Department is intent on bending over backward to protect members of the Department who violated DOJ policy or democratic norms during Trump’s tenure. That tendency was highlighted again in an opinion by Judge Amy Berman Jackson in which she castigated existing DOJ attorneys for trying to “paper over” the deceptions of prior DOJ attorneys. See Talking Points Memo, “Judge Again Torches DOJ For Mueller Memo Handling, But Pauses Order To Release It.” (“Her scorn was directed not just at the assertions made by the Trump-era Justice Department . . . but also at how the Justice Department, under President Biden, is now trying to spin those assertions and her rulings against them.”)

Pennsylvania Republicans Reverse Course on Mail Ballots.

          In 2019, Pennsylvania passed “expansive mail voting laws with nearly unanimous Republican support.” Today, those same Republicans are attempting to place a referendum on the ballot in Pennsylvania’s next election cycle that will repeal the law they supported only two years ago. They are resorting to a ballot referendum to circumvent Democratic Governor Tom Wolf’s veto power. See The Philadelphia Inquirer, “Pennsylvania Republicans eye voter ballot referendums to get past Tom Wolf vetoes.”

          The about-face by Pennsylvania Republicans is another illustration of the corrosive power of the Big Lie. Nothing changed between 2019 and 2021 except Trump’s relentless claims of fraud. Before those claims, Pennsylvania Republicans believed that expanding the right of its citizens to vote was good. Now, they seek to disenfranchise those same citizens. Shameful.

An Opportunity to Defend Virginia’s Democratic Assembly.

The above story about Pennsylvania highlights the importance of Democratic control of state legislatures. In five months, all of the Assembly seats in Virginia are up for election. SwingLeft has provided a list of the ten most competitive races. See SwingLeft, “Keep Virginia Blue.” 100% of any donation will go to the candidates in the top ten target races.

Concluding Thoughts.

Call for volunteers. One of the most frequent requests from readers is, “Can you tell me what organizations I should direct my volunteer efforts (or donations) to?” As readers know, I have promoted worthy organizations and candidates on an ad hoc basis. I do so only if a reader is involved in the organization or campaign and vouches for its legitimacy. Many readers have asked me to create a permanent, searchable list of organizations recommended by readers. I plan to do so but am asking for help. At the moment, I am looking for 2 to 3 tech-savvy readers to help set up and maintain a list of organizations that can be searched by region, state, cause, and activity type. Organizations on the list would need to have a “reader sponsor” who would volunteer to handle inquiries from others interested in becoming involved in the organization.

          There is no need to send organizations for the list at this time. At the moment, I am looking for technical help in setting up a list that will be accessible and searchable. If you think you can help, please send me an email at rhubbell@outlook.com with the subject line “Volunteer.” (If you receive the newsletter as an email, you can also just “reply,” but please change the subject line to “Volunteer.”) I don’t have any idea how many people will volunteer, so I may not be able to accept all offers of help. I ask for your understanding.

          I am excited about this project. I look forward to working with the reader community to create a tool that will help readers direct their energy and enthusiasm to the defense our democracy in the years to come.

          Talk to you tomorrow!