Biden’s Judicial Reform Commission and the Future of Court-Packing

SupremeCourt3
The Supreme Court.

 

When the issue of court-packing became a major focus of controversy during the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden tried to side-step it by proposing a bipartisan commission on judicial reform. At the time, I suggested the commission idea was an indication that Biden would prefer not to move forward with court-packing. By contrast, co-blogger Josh Blackman contended that the plan was to create a commission stacked with court-packing supporters, which would then recommend packing and give a boost to the cause.

It’s not yet entirely clear who was right. But early indications suggest my prediction was closer to the truth. As Josh notes, a recent Politico article reports that the person organizing the commission and leading the effort to select its members is Biden adviser and former Obama administration White House counsel Bob Bauer, who will also co-chair the commission.

Does Bauer have a position on court-packing? It so happens he does. Back in July 2018, he wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled “Liberals Should Not Pack the Courts,” in which he argued against proposals advanced by other liberals to pack either the Supreme Court or lower courts. He opposed such plans on both principled and pragmatic grounds, fearing that court-packing would damage the institution of judicial review, and also potentially damage the Democratic Party politically.

With Bauer heading up the selection the process, it is highly unlikely that the Commission will be “packed with court-packers.” To the contrary, it is more likely to instead have a working majority opposed to the idea. At the very least, the Commission will almost certainly not come up with a broad consensus in favor of court-packing, or any similar plan,  such as “rotation” and “court balancing.”

Politico reports that Harvard Law Prof. Jack Goldsmith will be another commission member. Goldsmith is a prominent conservative legal scholar and former Bush administration official (and coauthor, with Bauer, of an important new book on reforming executive power). While he has been highly critical of Trump on many matters, he seems generally happy with the latter’s Supreme Court nominees, and is almost certainly opposed to court-packing in any form.

There will be at least one member potentially sympathetic to court-packing: Caroline Frederickson, former president of the American Constitution Society (liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society). The other co-chair of the Commission will be Yale Law School Prof. Cristina Rodriguez, a well-known immigration law and constitutional law scholar. Although she happens to be my law school classmate and former high school debate opponent, I honestly don’t know where she stands in the court-packing debate. But even if she is supportive of the idea, I still think it’s unlikely the Commission (which is expected to have 9 to 15 members in all) will have a clear majority in favor of packing.

If the commission comes to a consensus on any proposal, it is likely to be something that enjoys broad support in the legal community, cutting across ideological lines. One such idea could be term limits for Supreme Court justices, a proposal backed by numerous legal scholars and other experts on both right and left (myself included). In his Atlantic article, Bauer wrote that term limits is an idea worth discussing. On the other hand, President Biden has expressed opposition.

I expect that the commission will ultimately recommend some sort of reforms. But court-packing is unlikely to be one of them, as conservatives and libertarians are almost uniformly opposed, while liberals are internally divided on the matter (though left-wing support for court-packing has clearly increased as a result of the high-handed behavior of Republicans in recent confirmation battles).

Regardless of what the commission does, it is highly unlikely that court-packing will be enacted any time soon. In divided 50-50 Senate, Democrats will need every single D vote to pass it (with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie). But key swing voters Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have already expressed their opposition. Other Democratic moderates might be opposed, as well. I am skeptical that court-packing can even pass the House of Representatives, where the Democrats have only a narrow majority, also dependent on moderate votes.

On top of that, passing court-packing with a narrow Senate majority would probably require ending the filibuster. Manchin and some other moderates are opposed to that too.

But it would be wrong to think that the court-packing issue will simply go away. Over the last few years, the once-unthinkable proposal has clearly become part of mainstream political discourse on the political left. Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans (where the party first claimed it was wrong to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016, and then took the completely opposite stance when it became convenient in 2020) the “Overton Window” on this issue has moved. Like Trumpian nativism on the right and Medicare for All on the left, court-packing is an idea that went from being out-of-the-mainstream to very much within it. It will not be easy to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Some combination of larger Democratic congressional majorities and Supreme Court decisions that greatly anger the left (and especially the general public) could rekindle the issue over the next few years, and make court-packing more politically viable than it is now.

Whether the persistence of the issue is good or bad depends on your point of view. For liberals who believe that court-packing is a justifiable response to previous GOP skullduggery, in order to reclaim one or more “stolen” Supreme Court seats, the difficulty of completely burying the idea is good news. My own view is that Court-packing would be much worse than other recent judicial-nomination shenanigans, and therefore it must be forestalled, even though the GOP deserves a substantial portion of the blame for bringing things to the point where the idea has become mainstream (the Democrats aren’t innocent lambs either).

In sum, Biden’s planned commission is unlikely to give a boost to court-packing, which is in any case highly unlikely to be enacted in the current Congress. But the idea remains a part of mainstream politics, and therefore could well become more viable at some other time in the next few years.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r2I20T
via IFTTT

Biden’s Judicial Reform Commission and the Future of Court-Packing

SupremeCourt3
The Supreme Court.

 

When the issue of court-packing became a major focus of controversy during the 2020 campaign, Joe Biden tried to side-step it by proposing a bipartisan commission on judicial reform. At the time, I suggested the commission idea was an indication that Biden would prefer not to move forward with court-packing. By contrast, co-blogger Josh Blackman contended that the plan was to create a commission stacked with court-packing supporters, which would then recommend packing and give a boost to the cause.

It’s not yet entirely clear who was right. But early indications suggest my prediction was closer to the truth. As Josh notes, a recent Politico article reports that the person organizing the commission and leading the effort to select its members is Biden adviser and former Obama administration White House counsel Bob Bauer, who will also co-chair the commission.

Does Bauer have a position on court-packing? It so happens he does. Back in July 2018, he wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled “Liberals Should Not Pack the Courts,” in which he argued against proposals advanced by other liberals to pack either the Supreme Court or lower courts. He opposed such plans on both principled and pragmatic grounds, fearing that court-packing would damage the institution of judicial review, and also potentially damage the Democratic Party politically.

With Bauer heading up the selection the process, it is highly unlikely that the Commission will be “packed with court-packers.” To the contrary, it is more likely to instead have a working majority opposed to the idea. At the very least, the Commission will almost certainly not come up with a broad consensus in favor of court-packing, or any similar plan,  such as “rotation” and “court balancing.”

Politico reports that Harvard Law Prof. Jack Goldsmith will be another commission member. Goldsmith is a prominent conservative legal scholar and former Bush administration official (and coauthor, with Bauer, of an important new book on reforming executive power). While he has been highly critical of Trump on many matters, he seems generally happy with the latter’s Supreme Court nominees, and is almost certainly opposed to court-packing in any form.

There will be at least one member potentially sympathetic to court-packing: Caroline Frederickson, former president of the American Constitution Society (liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society). The other co-chair of the Commission will be Yale Law School Prof. Cristina Rodriguez, a well-known immigration law and constitutional law scholar. Although she happens to be my law school classmate and former high school debate opponent, I honestly don’t know where she stands in the court-packing debate. But even if she is supportive of the idea, I still think it’s unlikely the Commission (which is expected to have 9 to 15 members in all) will have a clear majority in favor of packing.

If the commission comes to a consensus on any proposal, it is likely to be something that enjoys broad support in the legal community, cutting across ideological lines. One such idea could be term limits for Supreme Court justices, a proposal backed by numerous legal scholars and other experts on both right and left (myself included). In his Atlantic article, Bauer wrote that term limits is an idea worth discussing. On the other hand, President Biden has expressed opposition.

I expect that the commission will ultimately recommend some sort of reforms. But court-packing is unlikely to be one of them, as conservatives and libertarians are almost uniformly opposed, while liberals are internally divided on the matter (though left-wing support for court-packing has clearly increased as a result of the high-handed behavior of Republicans in recent confirmation battles).

Regardless of what the commission does, it is highly unlikely that court-packing will be enacted any time soon. In divided 50-50 Senate, Democrats will need every single D vote to pass it (with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie). But key swing voters Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have already expressed their opposition. Other Democratic moderates might be opposed, as well. I am skeptical that court-packing can even pass the House of Representatives, where the Democrats have only a narrow majority, also dependent on moderate votes.

On top of that, passing court-packing with a narrow Senate majority would probably require ending the filibuster. Manchin and some other moderates are opposed to that too.

But it would be wrong to think that the court-packing issue will simply go away. Over the last few years, the once-unthinkable proposal has clearly become part of mainstream political discourse on the political left. Thanks in part to the bad-faith behavior of Republicans (where the party first claimed it was wrong to vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year in 2016, and then took the completely opposite stance when it became convenient in 2020) the “Overton Window” on this issue has moved. Like Trumpian nativism on the right and Medicare for All on the left, court-packing is an idea that went from being out-of-the-mainstream to very much within it. It will not be easy to stuff the genie back into the bottle.

Some combination of larger Democratic congressional majorities and Supreme Court decisions that greatly anger the left (and especially the general public) could rekindle the issue over the next few years, and make court-packing more politically viable than it is now.

Whether the persistence of the issue is good or bad depends on your point of view. For liberals who believe that court-packing is a justifiable response to previous GOP skullduggery, in order to reclaim one or more “stolen” Supreme Court seats, the difficulty of completely burying the idea is good news. My own view is that Court-packing would be much worse than other recent judicial-nomination shenanigans, and therefore it must be forestalled, even though the GOP deserves a substantial portion of the blame for bringing things to the point where the idea has become mainstream (the Democrats aren’t innocent lambs either).

In sum, Biden’s planned commission is unlikely to give a boost to court-packing, which is in any case highly unlikely to be enacted in the current Congress. But the idea remains a part of mainstream politics, and therefore could well become more viable at some other time in the next few years.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r2I20T
via IFTTT

US Weighing Action Against Russia For Navalny Detention: Secretary Of State Blinken

US Weighing Action Against Russia For Navalny Detention: Secretary Of State Blinken

A day after the Senate confirmed President Biden’s nominee, veteran diplomat Antony Blinken, as the secretary of state, Blinken gave his first press conference Wednesday afternoon.

Revealing where Biden’s foreign policy emphasis will be over the coming months, he came out swinging against Putin (who else?) and Russia (in addition to mention of Iran and China in the course of the briefing), voicing that the US is “deeply concerned” about jailed opposition activist and politician Alexei Navalny.

Blinken said the US administration is now mulling “actions in response to his detention in Russia,” according to Reuters. He highlighted continued concerns for Navalny’s “security and safety”.

Via AP

To review, Navalny is serving a 30-day jail sentence for skipping probation related to a 2014 criminal conviction. He recently returned to Moscow from Berlin where he had been recovering from an alleged nerve agent poisoning in August. He and German investigators have claimed it was part of a Russian intelligence assassination attempt on orders from Putin, with the Russian president brushing off the accusations given Navalny is “not important enough” to be a target of state security and intelligence services. Navalny is now urging his supporters to the streets in defiance of the government.

“We have a deep concern for Mr. Navalny’s safety and security and the larger point is that his voice is the voice of many, many, many Russians and it should be heard, not muzzled,” Blinken said in his statements, also noting the US is not ruling out any punitive action on the table.

He further said he finds it striking that the Putin government is so “frightened of one man, Mr. Navalny” – in an echo of earlier comments he made. Blinken said in the press briefing:

“It remains striking to me how concerned and maybe even scared the Russian government seems to be of one man, Mr. Navalny.”

He said the Biden White House is closely watching the human rights situation inside Russia, following Saturday protests where hundreds were reportedly detained in demonstrations and clashes with police which were deemed ‘unauthorized’.

Meanwhile the Russia hawks are already talking “options”:

Blinken also raised other Russia-related issues being closely watched, as Reuters summarizes: “Blinken said at his first press briefing after being sworn in that the Biden administration was reviewing how to respond to actions by Russia, including the alleged use of chemical weapons in an attack on Navalny, the Solar Winds cyber attack, reports of bounties on American forces and interference in U.S. elections.”

The day prior, President Biden had raised these issues in a phone call with Putin; however, details in terms of the Russian leader’s response were not forthcoming.

* * *

Here’s the full Wednesday press briefing:

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 22:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36jl6Tb Tyler Durden

Biden Freezes Arms Sales To Saudis & UAE, Including Large F-35 Jet Transfer

Biden Freezes Arms Sales To Saudis & UAE, Including Large F-35 Jet Transfer

On Wednesday the Biden administration issued a freeze of all US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at a moment Congressional scrutiny of America’s support to the Saudi-led coalition waging war in Yemen grows. US involvement in the war goes all the way back to the Obama administration, with Trump also in the last months of his presidency approving billions in new arms sales to the kingdom.

In particular Lockheed Martin produced F-35 stealth fighters that were set to be transferred to the UAE the have been “temporarily” blocked along with munitions to the Saudis, among other sales. Prior reports suggested the prior Trump deal was to send as many as 50 advanced F-35 fighters to the UAE.

The Lockheed Martin produced F35 fighter jet, via FT/dpa

The AP cited officials who identified “that among the deals being paused is a massive $23 billion transfer of stealth F-35 fighters to the United Arab Emirates.”

“That sale and several other massive purchases of U.S. weaponry by Gulf Arab countries had been harshly criticized by Democrats in Congress,” the report added.

The State Department said of the “temporary pause” that it is “temporarily pausing the implementation of some pending U.S. defense transfers and sales under Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review.”

And Axios further details that “The sales of F-35 jets and attack drones to the UAE and a large supply of munitions to Saudi Arabia will be paused pending a review.” It added that it “signals a major policy shift from the Trump era, and may herald sharp tensions with both Gulf countries.”

In response the UAE appealed to the need for “interoperability” with US forces in the Gulf while underscoring the close military cooperation as a reliable partner force:

So far the Saudis have had no comment after the somewhat expected move, which also follows Biden previously on the campaign trail vowing to get tougher on the “pariah” state, as he called the kingdom during a debate.

Months ago an attempt in the Senate led by New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez to block Trump arms sales to the Saudis was narrowly defeated.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 22:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qZrdUw Tyler Durden

20% Of The World Could Have Digital Cash In Three Years: BIS

20% Of The World Could Have Digital Cash In Three Years: BIS

While most traders and finance pros are distracted by the ongoing war between Wall Street and Wall Street Bets which sparked market moves and short squeezes which until last week were viewed as unthinkable, we should remember that for all its entertainment value the crusade of a few millions GenZers is a sideshow which can be shut down with the flick of a switch.

Indeed, tonight’s main event, which saw the most heavily shorted stocks tumble the moment the r/WallStreetBets subreddit went dark (or rather “private”) only to rebound once the forum reemerged, demonstrated just how easy it is for both Silicon Valley and Wall Street to silence these upstart voices and return to market to “normal.” And all they have to do is to claim that there is “hate speech” on the forum – a truly shocking discovery within the testosterone-heavy world of male traders – as Discord did when it shut down the WSB server earlier today.

In any case, while we all keep an eye on what Gamestop does next, we should always remember that the people in charge are those that print the money, namely the world’s central banks. And today, in all the chaos surrounding the latest most shorted meltups, there was some critical news which most missed yet which will have far greater consequences on the future of the world then where GME closes tomorrow.

According to a survey conducted by the central banks’ central bank, the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements (profiled in “Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World“), central banks representing one-fifth of the world’s population are likely to issue their own digital currencies in the next three years.

The push for digital currencies – which as we – and DoubleLine – explained last year is the final move in the radical overhaul to the established monetary system and which will unleash far higher inflation – comes as authorities look to fend off the threat to their money-printing powers from bitcoin and efforts linked to Big Tech such as the Facebook-backed Diem, formerly Libra. In fact, just today, Agustin Carstens, the general manager of the BIS – condemned bitcoin as “a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster” and said it was “piggybacking” on mainstream institutions and becoming a “threat to financial stability”, an attempt to demonize Bitcoin as if it is somehow worse than central banking itself.

At the same time, central banks who have taken interest rates negative are looking at whether digital cash could be used to help implement the radical policy. Because in a world with trillions in paper money, the easiest way to circumvent punitive interest rates is simply to hold cash in one’s safe. Digital currencies would promptly do away with that.

As Reuters reports, Wednesday’s BIS survey of 65 central banks showed 86% were exploring the benefits and drawbacks of digital currencies, with some testing possible designs. Translation: we are just years away from global implementation.

And while the survey showed that emerging and developing economy central banks are more likely than those in major economies to issue central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), the reality is that it is precisely the developed nations whose central banks are desperate for “blockchained” control over currency in circulation, and its digitalization, especially when another massive stimulus has to be unleashed. As we explained previously, such a digital deposit of dollars – which would circumvent the Treasury (and Congress) – by the Fed, is precisely what central banks hope to enact after the next financial crisis in order to spark a reflationary wave.

Indeed, as the survey also showed a number of bigger countries have also been testing the waters, with China the most advanced.

A fifth of central banks from major economies that responded to the survey said issuing digital currencies was “possible” in the short or medium term, up from only one last year. Expect this number to rise to 100% in the coming months.

Meanwhile, as we reported last year, the People’s Bank of China expanded a trial of a digital renminbi to its three largest urban regions, which together contain 400 million people, in August. ECB President Christine Lagarde said last week her bank was pushing on with its work on a digital euro, Sweden’s E-Krona is progressing and even Jerome Powell has said the Fed is carrying out experiments for a digital dollar.

To be sure, there are still hurdles to overcome, first and foremost the widespread resistance that would emerge once central banks declare paper currency void.

The BIS survey also showed that over a quarter of central banks do not currently have the authority to issue a CBDC and about 48% remain unsure, although both those numbers can easily move higher if the need was there. Separately, around 60% of banks see themselves as unlikely to issue any type of digital currency in the short or medium-term.

As a whole, though, “central banks are moving into more advanced stages of CBDC engagement, progressing from conceptual research to practical experimentation,” the survey said.

And while we wait for the catalyst that moves the global economy into a digital payment format, last October the Bahamas became the first country to launch a general purpose CBDC, known as the Sand Dollar. Many others will follow suit.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 21:57

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3t3gdHu Tyler Durden

FDA Issues “Import Alert” On Potentially Deadly Mexican Hand Sanitizer 

FDA Issues “Import Alert” On Potentially Deadly Mexican Hand Sanitizer 

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a rare “import alert” Tuesday on alcohol-based hand sanitizers originating from Mexico that could potentially be hazardous to the health and safety of US consumers. 

Last summer, the FDA began to issue warnings for consumers about counterfeit hand sanitizers from Mexico. Since the notice, an analysis completed by the agency found 84% of the hand sanitizers imported from the country were not in compliance with US standards. 

Even though many of the products “were labeled to contain ethanol (also known as ethyl alcohol) but tested positive for methanol contamination, methanol, or wood alcohol, is a substance that can be toxic when absorbed through the skin and life-threatening when ingested,” the FDA statement read. 

The import alert has allowed the FDA to heavily scrutinize and detain hand sanitizer shipments from Mexico if need be. 

“Consumer use of hand sanitizers has increased significantly during the coronavirus pandemic, especially when soap and water are not accessible, and the availability of poor-quality products with dangerous and unacceptable ingredients will not be tolerated,” said Judy McMeekin, Pharm.D., FDA Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. 

McMeekin continued: “Today’s actions are necessary to protect the safe supply of alcohol-based hand sanitizers. We will continue to work with our stakeholders to ensure the availability of safe products and to communicate vital information with the health and safety of US consumers in mind.” 

The FDA warned the potentially deadly Mexican hand sanitizer could cause “nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent damage to the nervous system or death.”

What needs to be asked is if nefarious actions by entities in Mexico purposely manufactured deadly hand sanitizer to poison Americans?

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 21:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cgRfhO Tyler Durden

Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’

Biden Signs Executive Order To Ban The Term ‘China Virus’

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The latest of Joe Biden’s THIRTY SEVEN executive orders signed in the first week of his presidency states that the term ‘Chinese virus’ or ‘China virus’ is now banned.

Yes, this is real.

The White House website confirms that Biden signed this EO.

CBS News reported ‘Biden to address racism toward Asian Americans during pandemic with executive action’.

The report notes that “The Biden executive order is also expected to direct federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to examine whether there are xenophobic references like “China virus” in any existing policies, directives or government websites published by the Trump administration.”

NBC News lists all the executive actions Biden has instigated thus far, with the last being the ban on the term ‘China Virus’. The report notes that “additionally, the order directed the attorney general to work to prevent discrimination and hate crimes.”

Given that literally anything is now being touted as a ‘hate crime’, that could mean banning or canceling absolutely everyone and everything.

As we noted earlier, Biden admitted back in October that anyone who legislates by executive order should be considered ‘a dictator’.

Biden appears not to know what he is actually signing, and can barely hold the pen:

After managing to stuff the pen in his pants, Biden then babbled on about the wearing of face masks, for which he has already issued multiple executive mandates.

Biden said that a Congressman told him to “kiss my ear, I’m not wearing a mask”.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 21:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YiBkr6 Tyler Durden

US COVID Cases Tumble Across The West & South

US COVID Cases Tumble Across The West & South

In the last few days – really since the BIden inauguration – we have seen declarations of victory over covid across the board, from the likes of Dr. Fauci who yesterday said that coronavirus infections may be about to hit a “plateau“, to Wall Street, where Bank of America yesterday declared “The Beginning Of The End Of The COVID Crisis.” Then, last week, we asked if it was “almost over” when the US saw a record one-day drop in covid hospitalizations.

Today, we got further confirmation that the inauguration of Biden was magically just the event that was needed to put covid in the rear-view mirror: as Bloomberg reports, almost every state in the West reported cases falling or flat Tuesday, and every region in the US has seen its seven-day average drop at least 20% since Jan. 12.

When was the peak day? Why just around the day Joe Biden walked into the White House.

Some states, like California and Oregon, saw their numbers drop by more than one-third in the course of the past week. Such improvements inspired California Gov. Newsom to ease social-distancing measures earlier this week. The relaxed policies, combined with more-contagious strains gaining traction in the state, could lay the groundwork for numbers to spike again.

Among US regions, the South, where the seven-day average ticked down 24% over the last two weeks, improved the least. The significant decrease, which has lasted longer than any since the summer, came off a high peak. The South continues to see the highest caseload, and new infections there accounted for half the national total Tuesday. Numbers this month may also be overstated, reflecting catch.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 20:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ymn9RW Tyler Durden

Biden Chief Of Staff Offers Support For Teachers’ Unions Refusing To Reopen Schools

Biden Chief Of Staff Offers Support For Teachers’ Unions Refusing To Reopen Schools

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

President Joe Biden’s chief of staff on Tuesday backed teachers’ unions that are refusing to return to schools for in-person learning, contradicting studies that show little virus transmission is taking place inside schools.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials have repeatedly said it’s safe to reopen schools. Former Director Robert Redfield said last year schools never should have shut down. Officials said Tuesday in a journal article that “there has been little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission” of the virus, which causes COVID-19.

But teachers’ unions across the United States are refusing to resume in-person learning, claiming teachers would be in danger.

In the most high-profile case, the Chicago Teachers Union is battling with the city of Chicago, which attempted to resume in-person classes on Monday. The union claims conditions aren’t right and in a blog post on Tuesday, urged its members to work from home on Wednesday. If the city retaliates, it said, a strike will be held.

Biden campaigned on dealing with the CCP virus pandemic. He vowed to spearhead the reopening of schools.

Asked why so many public schools remain closed, his chief of staff Ron Klain said it was a funding issue.

Teachers Adrienne Thomas (L) and Irene Barrera set up their computers and materials for their virtual classes outside of Suder Montessori Magnet Elementary School in solidarity with pre-K educators forced back into the building in Chicago, Ill., on Jan. 11, 2021. (Anthony Vazquez/Chicago Sun-Times via AP

“That’s why the president of the United States sent a plan to Congress even before he took office to make the investments you need to make the schools safe,” Klain said during an appearance on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to Biden’s $1.9 trillion proposal that includes a number of measures such as a minimum wage hike.

Biden, in remarks at the White House on Tuesday, called for Congress to pass the proposal “to help schools and businesses reopen.”

A study published Tuesday showed few CCP virus outbreaks related to classroom settings being seen in rural schools in Wisconsin that reopened. But those schools received “sizable grants” that enabled them to set small classroom sizes and implement other safety measures, Klain argued.

“In other states, we haven’t seen those kinds of investments. President Biden has sent a plan to Congress that will make sure that the majority of our schools can be reopened in 100 days. We need Congress to pass that plan so that we can do the kind of things you need to do so that the schools can be safe, so the students can be safe, so the teachers can be safe. Sadly, it costs money,” Klain said.

When the host pushed back and pointed to Chicago, asking why the union seemed to be going against what studies show, he added:

I don’t think that teachers’ unions are overruling studies. I think that what you’re seeing [is] that schools haven’t made the investments to keep the students safe. I mean, again, the Wisconsin study were classrooms of 12 on average. So that requires a lot more classrooms, a lot more teachers, or, you know, other kinds of arrangements to get them small, podding students very carefully.”

“So we need to do the things to open safely. Most of the teachers I talk to, they want to be back in the classroom. They just want to know that it’s safe and we as a country should make the investments to make it safe,” Klain added.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KUCS7z Tyler Durden

Did America’s Anti-Cop Movement Lead To Largest Homicide Increase In US History?

Did America’s Anti-Cop Movement Lead To Largest Homicide Increase In US History?

Did America’s ‘defund the police’ movement result in the largest percentage increase in homicides in US history? Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The War On Cops” makes a strong argument that it likely did.

In a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed, Mac Donald notes that 2020 ‘likely saw the largest percentage increase in homicides in American history,’ noting that murder was up almost 37% across a sample of 57 large and medium-size cities. According to preliminary figures, “at least 2,000 more Americans, most of them black, were killed in 2020 than 2019.”

And while the establishment media is largely blaming the pandemic for the spike, Mac Donald says the chronology doesn’t support that assertion – and President Biden’s criminal-justice policies stand to exacerbate the ongoing crime wave while ignoring its causes.

The local murder increases in 2020 were startling: 95% in Milwaukee, 78% in Louisville, Ky., 74% in Seattle, 72% in Minneapolis, 62% in New Orleans, and 58% in Atlanta, according to data compiled by crime analyst Jeff Asher. Dozens of children, overwhelmingly black, were killed in drive-by shootings. They were slain in their beds, living rooms and strollers. They were struck down at barbecues, in their yards, in malls, in their parents’ cars, and at birthday parties. Fifty-five children were killed in Chicago in 2020, 17 in St. Louis, and 11 in Philadelphia. In South Los Angeles alone, 40 children were shot, some non-lethally, through September. –WSJ

The MSM, such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, suggested that the increase is due to the “economic, civic and interpersonal stress” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot similarly blamed pandemic-related “frustration, anger … trauma and mental health challenges.” 

However, this doesn’t square with the fact that crime actually fell during the first few months of the pandemic lockdowns – both domestically and abroad, only to reverse itself in May in the United States, “thanks to a surge in drive-by shootings.”

On May 31 alone, 18 people were murdered in Chicago – the city’s most violent day in 60 years according to Paul Cassell, a law professor at the University of Utah. Elsewhere, American cities saw ‘similar spikes in mayhem, all tied to the street violence unleashed by the death of George Floyd,” a black man who died while in custody of the Minneapolis PD on May 25 after an officer knelt on his neck for over eight minutes, while having fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system – and being COVID-positive – at the time of his death.

As Mac Donald writes, “The political and media response to Floyd’s death amplified the existing narrative that policing was lethally racist,” adding “The ensuing riots received little condemnation from Democratic leaders and a weak response from the criminal-justice system.

Since Floyd’s death, police have faced a ‘poisonous environment,’ having been shot in the head, firebombed, and assaulted with lethal projectiles. Those who attempt to provide aid in the field risk being pelted with rocks and bottles.

Los Angeles police officers shot in ambush-style attack

One Oakland, California officer who has arrested ‘dozens of known murderers and gang members’ told Mac Donald that he’s scared for the first time, “not because the criminals are necessarily more violent, even though they are,” but because if he has to use force on a suspect, he stands to lose his job, his liberty or his life. A “simple cost-benefit analysis” would suggest the safest course of action for officers is to simply recall to calls for service and collect a paycheck.

“All cops now understand this,” the officer said.

One veteran Chicago detective said “Every day you have to decide whether to get out of your patrol car and do something or do nothing,” adding that if anyone attempts actual police work, they may end up in jail or without a job if things go sideways.

“Proactive police work is dead,” said Police Lt. Bob Kroll of Minneapolis, where police stops fell by more than 50% over the summer. Elsewhere, such as Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Chicago and elsewhere, the number of police-civilian contacts have plummeted.

Meanwhile, anti-gang units and other specialty units across the country which got guns off the street were disbanded due to having a ‘disparate impact on African-Americans,’ while police chiefs and prosecutors alike have refused to enforce low-level ‘quality-of-life’ laws for the same reason.

As a result, “More gang members are carrying guns, since their chances of being stopped are slim. They are enthusiastically killing each other and innocent bystanders out of opportunism, not economic deprivation or existential angst.

Meanwhile, 2020’s violence has only accelerated into the new year – with shootings in South Los Angeles jumping 742% in the first two weeks of the year, while Oakland homicides were up 500% and shootings up 126% through Jan 17. Murders in New York have jumped 42% and shooting victims 15% during the same period, while carjackings in Chicago are up 135% in Chicago.

On Jan. 16, a woman was pulled from her car in Aurora, Ill., and shot in the back by carjackers who had already stolen two vehicles earlier that day. Four other Chicago suburbs were hit that weekend. In Chicago proper, there have been 144 carjackings through Jan. 21, with 166 guns recovered. WSJ

President Biden, of course, is fanning the anti-cop flames – arguing during the campaign without justification that African-Americans ‘rightly feared that their loved ones could be killed by a cop every time they stepped outside.’ Now, his administration’s criminal-justice blueprint aims to get rid of racial disparities in law enforcement – which would eliminate much of law enforcement itself.

Read the rest of the op-ed here.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 20:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3iTH3gn Tyler Durden