How a 1965 Supreme Court Ruling Explains the Partisan Battle Over Kavanaugh’s Confirmation: New at Reason

One way to look at the situation of Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee awaiting a Senate vote, is as only the latest episode in the long story of Griswold v. Connecticut.

Griswold is the 1965 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that had outlawed the use of contraception. The court’s opinion, by William Douglas, found a “right of privacy,” reasoning in part that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

Griswold was the basis for Roe v. Wade, the abortion rights case decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. It was the basis for Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. It was the basis for Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case in which the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In all three cases—Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell—the court’s opinions cited Griswold extensively and relied on it.

One reason that many Democratic senators and advocacy groups opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation even before a sexual assault allegation surfaced was their fear that a Justice Kavanaugh and his colleagues might overturn or limit the privacy right discovered in Griswold and extended in its successor cases, writes Ira Stoll.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2NgnJIL
via IFTTT

Is the USMCA, the Trade Deal that Will Replace NAFTA, a ‘Historic Transaction’? No.

Give President Donald Trump credit. He said he was going to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the trade deal among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. And as Reason‘s Eric Boehm noted here earlier today, he’s just done that, concluding a new three-way agreement called the USMCA (for United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement). It’s nice to have a president follow through on campaign promises, especially when they don’t involve shutting down the country to immigrants and refugees or spending billions of new dollars on the military.

But this new arrangement, like the one it replaces, just isn’t as big a game changer as its critics or champions think. There’s slightly over $1 trillion in trade among the United States, Mexico, and Canada. (The U.S. economy alone generates about $20 trillion in goods and services.) The best thing about the USMCA is that it ends the drama created by Trump in the first place. The agreement must be approved by each country’s legislature, which is expected to happen, and it will go into force in 2020. At year six the signatories will review it, but its terms are expected to last for 16 years.

The agreement opens up part of Canada’s dairy market to American milk producers, and it forces Mexico to pay higher wages to people in automobile factories. (It also makes it easier for them to unionize, at least theoretically.) The biggest effects will probably be felt in the auto industry, where the USMCA has a strong potential to, as Boehm writes, “warp automakers’ supply chains [and] increase prices.” But the deal also gives U.S. drug companies two extra years in Canada before generics can compete against name brands. There are 60-plus pages of new intellectual property rules, including an agreement to extend Canada’s copyright terms from 50 years after the death of an author to 70 years, the current length in the United States.

Canada, which resisted coming to the table until the last moment, received some key concessions, especially regarding Chapter 19, a dispute-resolution system. The Washington Post reports:

Chapter 19 allows Canada, Mexico and the United States to challenge one another’s anti-dumping and countervailing duties in front of a panel of representatives from each country. This is generally a much easier process than trying to challenge a trade practice in a U.S. court. Over the years, Canada has successfully used Chapter 19 to challenge the United States on its softwood lumber restrictions.

In the final analysis, there aren’t that many more gains from trade to be had among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, especially if the movement of labor isn’t part of the deal (which it’s not). As Mercatus Center economist and Reason columnist Veronique de Rugy wrote earlier this year, trade was already pretty damn free among the three signatories:

The WTO [World Trade Organization] reports that all non-agricultural U.S. exports to Canada also enter that country duty-free. And for all the talk about that pesky 270 percent Canadian tariff on U.S. dairy, 97 percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada are duty-free.

Other countries aren’t as lucky when exporting to Canada and Mexico. The weighted tariff that non-U.S. foreign exporters face on their agricultural products sold to Canada is 12.4 percent, and on their non-agricultural products it’s 2.3 percent. When non-Americans export to Mexico, agricultural tariffs average 20.1 percent, and non-agricultural ones average 3.5 percent. Other countries would love to get some of the NAFTA treatment.

NAFTA had a positive impact on the U.S. economy. Writing about the risk of withdrawing from the 1994 agreement in The Wall Street Journal a few months ago, Matthew Slaughter, dean of the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, wrote, “In a new report canvassing dozens of academic and policy studies, I find that the U.S. gross domestic product is now 0.2 percent to 0.3 percent larger than it would be without Nafta, a yearly boost of about $50 billion.”

Trump’s understanding of trade is notably screwy, a fact he makes clear every time he insists that trade deficits are a bad thing. As a candidate in 2016, he excoriated NAFTA, which he said “destroyed this country economically.” That is simply false on every meaningful level. What NAFTA did was effectively lower the cost of American goods and services being sold in Canada and Mexico. (Tariffs were already on the low side.) In the United States, unemployment fell and factory wages increased after the passage of NAFTA; the country had been shedding manufacturing jobs as a percent of the workforce since 1943 and, contrary to the prophesy of 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot, NAFTA generated no additional “giant sucking sound” on that score.

NAFTA is best understood as part of a post-war global movement toward freer trade which made everyone involved wealthier. As Reason‘s Ronald Bailey has noted,

in 1960, just 22 percent of countries representing 21 percent of the global population had open trade policies. This rose to 73 percent of countries representing 46 percent of world population by the year 2000. [A 2008 World Bank] study compared growth rates of countries before and after trade liberalization, finding that “over the 1950–98 period, countries that liberalized their trade regimes experienced average annual growth rates that were about 1.5 percentage points higher than before liberalization” and that “investment rates by rose 1.5–2.0 percentage points.”

The USMCA is, in its way, classic Trump. The new deal isn’t particularly different than the old one, but it gives the president a chance to talk up his policies:

Late last night, our deadline, we reached a wonderful new Trade Deal with Canada, to be added into the deal already reached with Mexico. The new name will be The United States Mexico Canada Agreement, or USMCA. It is a great deal for all three countries, solves the many…deficiencies and mistakes in NAFTA, greatly opens markets to our Farmers and Manufacturers, reduces Trade Barriers to the U.S. and will bring all three Great Nations together in competition with the rest of the world. The USMCA is a historic transaction!

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2DX5IQH
via IFTTT

Stocks Swoon As Trump Trade Deal Euphoria Fades, Small Caps Slammed

Did Trump drink Trudeau’s milkshake?

 

China is closed for golden week, and while stocks weren’t trading, yuan slipped back to crucial support levels…

 

European markets were dominated by Italiian weakness…

 

As Italian banks collapsed…

 

Futures markets show the overnight exuberance at the trade deal.. and how it faded once Europe closed…

Nasdaq drifted into the red by the closed but the Russell 2000 Index of small-cap stocks is the worst-performing major index today (worst day in over 2 months), and that comes hot on the heels of the index’s worst monthly retreat since February.

Bloomberg notes that Small Caps may be feeling the sting of a steady stream of Fed hikes, which is increasing the cost of capital. Small companies may also be seeing some outflows as investors may now need less of a hedge against a trade war with the new USMCA deal.

GE soared after the ouster of the CEO… (but faded off early highs as dividend cut questions arose)

 

TSLA (stocks and bonds) soared after Musk settled with SEC…

 

FANG Stocks managed to cling to gains but basically did a huge roundtrip on the day…

 

But Tech is still dominating financials…

 

Treasury yields chopped around on the day but notably sold off as stocks sold into the last hour (long-end underperformed)…

 

Which pushed the yield curve up to on-week steeps…

 

The dollar index managed to hold on to gains, erasing Friday’s losses…

 

Of course today’s big movers were the Loonie (highest since May) and Peso (highest since August), but the latter was less impressed by the close…

 

Cryptos were mixed with Ripple and Ether higher, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin lower…

 

Commodities were dominated by a spike in crude oil as the rest of the space drifted modestly lower…

 

Brent topped $85… highest since Nov 2014…

 

WTI topped $75…highest since Nov 2014…

The irony of these oil spikes is that they occurred after headlines suggested Trump spoke with the Saudi King once again (presumably about keeping prices down).

Gold was unable to get back to $1200…

 

And finally, all of this exuberance happened as The IMF warned that global growth has peaked…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Ng2syS Tyler Durden

Tesla Is Planning A Second Tent To “Wrap” Brand New Cars

Just a few months after Elon Musk stunned auto industry experts by erecting a tent at the company’s Fremont facility to handle Model 3 production, Tesla is at it again.

According to Bloomberg, which tracked down a new permit application filed last month with the city of Fremont, CAl, the electric-car maker has applied to build a 4,000-square-foot tent where vehicles will be wrapped in protective material for transit. The new structure will be constructed for the south lot of Tesla’s outbound logistics yard.

Just four months ago, in June, Tesla built a general assembly line for the Model 3 sedan underneath a massive outdoor tent near its Fremont vehicle factory’s paint shop. While the move was widely derided by auto-manufacturing experts, it played a key role in boosting production beginning late in the second quarter. It also appears to have resulted in a subpar final product which is exposed to the elements and has led to numerous complaints about the Model 3’s quality control and build status.

The wrapping tent will seek to address a recurring criticism lobbed at the company by the same short sellers who CEO Elon Musk has publicly expressed a desire to “burn”, and did so with his fraudulent attempt to boost TSLA stock price by announcing a non-existant going private deal.

In recent months, Tesla skeptics – this site included – have shown images of parking lots packed with Tesla vehicles that are uncovered and exposed to the elements as the carmaker has been going through what Musk recently said on Twitter was “delivery logistics hell.”

Unwrapped Teslas have also been photographed on trailers that are transporting them to stores.

Tesla is slated to report third-quarter production and delivery figures early this week. Optimism about the results and the outcome of Musk’s settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission requires him to step down as chairman – but remain as CEO – sent the company shares soaring as much as 18 percent Monday, the biggest intraday jump since February 2014.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2RmmAmu Tyler Durden

Kavanaugh Brawl Shows it’s Time for a Controlled Burn of the State: Podcast

||| Valentin Rodriguez/agefotostock/NewscomIs Brett Kavanaugh lying about boofing, the Ralph Club, and the Devil’s Triangle? And if so, should that be disqualifying for the Supreme Court, even if the process that led to such cross-examination was grotesquely cynical and partisan? Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and yours truly are split on these and other questions in this moment of national anger and anguish, as you can hear on the Monday editor-roundtable version of the Reason Podcast, but they do agree on one thing: To quote Robby Soave, “at this lowest of moments for political discourse,” it’s worth remembering that “the libertarian vision for society is one in which politics plays a much smaller role.”

The editors also discuss Sen. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.) and the hated temperamental center, the latest poll numbers about political self-affiliation, the great reasonminus50 Twitter feed, and more.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

‘The Life and Death of a Certain K. Zabriskie, Patriarch’ by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Relevant links from the show:

The Kavanaugh Nomination Fight Has Pulled Us Further Into a Partisan Quagmire,” by Peter Suderman

Jeff Flake and the Hated—Yet Vital—Libertarian Center,” by Matt Welch

Brett Kavanaugh’s Anger Should Surprise No One,” by Robby Soave

Christine Blasey Ford Was Worth Hearing, But No One on the Senate Judiciary Committee Was Listening,” by Robby Soave

Beer, Courage, and Vomit: Major Themes of the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearing,” by Jacob Sullum

Brett Kavanaugh’s Illegal Beer Consumption Highlights the Perversity of Drinking Ages,” by Jacob Sullum

3 Questions To Ask Yourself While Watching the Kavanaugh/Ford Hearings Today,” by Nick Gillespie

Supreme Court to Consider Tree Frogs, Liquor Licensing, Criminals With Dementia, and More This Fall,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Here’s What Congress Was Doing While You Were Watching the Kavanaugh Circus,” by Eric Boehm

Don’t miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Iu0079
via IFTTT

Argentina – The Truce Is Over: Peso Cannot Survive A Destructive Monetary Policy

Authored by Daniel Lacalle via DLacalle.com,

The government of Mauricio Macri lived a week of apparent tranquillity, but the resignation of Luis Caputo as President of the Central Bank and a new IMF deal triggered the end of calm.

It was essential for the government to understand that these periods of calm are what it needs to carry out structural reforms, not to think that “everything is discounted” and continue regardless.

The appointment of Guido Sandleris has not been the change that Argentines and markets expected. His profile is perceived as more than continuity, more a defender of the past monetary policies that have led the country to stagflation and a supporter of the price controls that have eroded consumer and investor confidence.

The alarm signals remain. The reserves of foreign currency of Argentina are below the level at which they were after the agreement with the International Monetary Fund.

No agreement is going to work if structural reforms are limited to some minor and insufficient adjustments.

The reforms that have been so far announced should be strengthened or the “placebo” effect of the IMF deal can turn against the government.

An important factor in understanding the apparent calm period seen in the past week was the effective disarmament of the Lebacs. It was important to end these short-term sources of monetary instability in the days when the exchange rate of the peso vs the US dollar was relatively quiet.

However, the disarmament of the Lebac cannot be solved with gradual measures. Substituting the increase of money supply in pesos of more than $ 231,000 million with more debt in other instruments and reducing the reserves of US dollars, can generate a serious funnel effect. Raising the Leliq rate to 65% is kicking the can forward that does not solve the Argentine monetary problem.

If the disarmament of the Lebac is solved selling dollars and extending the debt at very high rates and increasing duration, while the net financing needs of the state increase, it is just a kick in the can forward that would not work because it depends on external factors. With the US 10-year bond above 3.05% and the Argentine economy in contraction, going to extensions in duration is an aspirin that does not cure a more serious illness.

In fact, the concern among international analysts with the new appointment in the Central Bank is that the government may stop the timid structural reforms and maintain a monetary policy that has been a global failure. The promised reduction in political spending is simply insufficient, in a country that has such high public spending. Therefore, it is risky to disguise the funding hole because it may appear as a major problem in a few months.

In reality, such aggressive monetary expansion will always generate a higher negative effect in the medium term.

Obviously, the Central Bank does not make fiscal policy, but its perennial monetary expansion has been the major driver of the stagflation problem of the country.

The government cannot deny that the announcement of emergency measures is only a small fraction of a much more serious problem that was generated with the brutal monetary expansion of the years of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

This enormous expansion of the monetary base and a giant political spending bill that doubled in a few years is the reason why Argentina is going from stagflation to crisis and back to start.

The government must urgently think of true dollarization. Convertibility was not dollarization, it was a disguise of rising imbalances with an artificial peg made with an unrealistic exchange rate from the beginning. Convertibility only delayed the devaluation by hiding the monetary hole with an artificial and unreal change ratio.

Dollarization is not a currency board or a promise of fixing a dollar-peso change decided by political power and waiting for the world to believe it. Dollarization means abandoning a monetary policy that has destroyed the credibility of the peso among the Argentine citizens themselves. 

My good friends in Argentina are the best foreign currency traders in the world because since they are children, they learn to preserve their savings and the purchasing power of their salaries by selling pesos. That destruction of the credibility of the peso is not the fault of Macri or Dujovne, but it is undeniable.

Argentina does not need to have monetary policy flexibility, because history shows that the government and the central bank use it only to expropriate wealth and purchasing power via inflation and devaluation. Argentina does not have to worry about the “lower supply of pesos when confidence increases”. It is a problem that has never existed in seven decades. 

Argentina does not have to worry about the impulse that having its own currency can create. It has never existed.

Argentina does not have to worry about entering into debt and deficits if it dollarizes. It already has that problem.

The defenders of the peso do so by denying the reality of a currency that has no validity as a reserve of value and means of exchange for most domestic economic agents and even less for foreigners. The peso is a failed currency that disguises an unsustainable level of spending.

Dollarization saved Ecuador and El Salvador from a Venezuelan-style hyperinflation, and the euro saved Spain from those atrocious “competitive devaluations” that never improved competitiveness, neither structural unemployment nor the productive model. Dollarization may have a small impact on short-term debt, but it would avoid the evidence of defaults and stagflation.

Of course, dollarization highlights the need to implement reforms that some governments prefer to avoid. After all, for a government, it is easier to put the blame of inflation on any invented external enemy than to admit it is a direct consequence of its insane monetary policy.

If Macri does not recognize the evidence that any Argentine citizen knows, that confidence in the peso has all but disappeared due to political abuse, then the bleeding of the economy. The peso has not been attacked. Governments killed it by destroying its purchasing power for years.

A rich and educated nation like Argentina cannot continue to be impoverished through a destructive monetary policy and an extractive political sector.

Massive political spending, high inflation and insane printing of pesos are one and the same. Policies that have expropriated the wealth and savings of Argentine citizens. It must be stopped. The only solution is dollarization.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2xQ3HjG Tyler Durden

California Enacts State Net Neutrality Rules, Gets Sued Immediately

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a sweeping new net neutrality bill into law on Sunday. Within minutes, his state was hit with a Department of Justice lawsuit.

“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce—the federal government does,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a press release. The release also accused California of unlawfully imposing “burdensome state regulations on the free Internet.”

Sponsored by Sen. Scott Weiner (D–San Francisco), the law aims to reimpose the Obama-era net neutrality rules, which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed this year with its Restoring Internet Freedom order.

California is hardly the first state to take this step. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have passed similar state-level net neutrality bills, and governors in six states have issued executive orders imposing net neutrality–like requirements on ISPs that contract with the state government.

But California’s bill is exceptionally sweeping. Its restrictions on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) include bans on zero-rating (offering certain content or applications for free), paid prioritization (letting consumers pay more for faster download speeds for certain content), or otherwise blocking, slowing down, or speeding up internet traffic because of its content, source, or destination.

Many of these regulations directly conflict with the “light-touch” approach to internet regulation spelled out in the Restoring Internet Freedom order. The order also included a provision preempting state and local net neutrality laws. The Justice Department’s lawsuit argues that S.B. 822 therefore “is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and is preempted by federal law.”

That should be a pretty straightforward case for the federal government to make, says Tom Struble, an attorney and technology policy expert with the R Street Institute. He expects the feds’ lawsuit against California to serve as a vehicle for overturning the other state net neutrality laws as well.

“Because California’s [net neutrality law] went the furthest, I think the [Justice Department] was waiting for them to pass that one because it makes the easiest case to win,” Struble tells Reason. “I think they’re going to win the case. I think it’s pretty clear the law is illegal, at least two times over, if not three or four.”

Defenders of state-level net neutrality laws argue that the FCC, by choosing not to impose certain regulations on how ISPs treat the content on their networks, has opened up a space that allows states to act.

Washington state Rep. Brian Hansen (D–Bainbridge Island), author of Washington’s net neutrality law, told Reason last year, “The FCC is declaring that a certain set of federal statutory provisions do not give it the authority to regulate standards of conduct on the internet. Yet somehow, as if by magic, that same statute gives them the authority to preempt state attempts to regulate standards of conduct on the internet. I’m not sure how that can coexist.”

Struble rejects this premise, arguing that the FCC did not abdicate its own authority to regulate broadband internet by repealing the Obama-era rules. Rather, he says, the FCC was merely switching from a more regulatory approach to a less regulatory one, which does nothing to impact its ability to preempt conflicting state laws.

Meanwhile, the Dormant Commerce Clause forbids a state from discriminating against out-of-state companies, or otherwise unduly burdening interstate commercial activity without a strong state interest in doing so, regardless of what the federal regulatory framework is.

By banning things like zero-rating—something mobile service providers are already offering in California—S.B. 822 imposes just such an undue burden on interstate commerce, argues Struble. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backs net neutrality, has said that state-level net neutrality regulations are vulnerable to challenges on Dormant Commerce Clause grounds.

The obvious legal problems with California’s net neutrality law make it as much a political statement against the Trump administration as it is a seriously regulatory proposal.

The law’s defenders have certainly been happy to raise the #resistance flag in response to the lawsuit.

“Sessions and his boss Donald Trump aren’t satisfied with the federal government repealing net neutrality. In their world, *no one* is allowed to protect an open internet,” said Weiner in a statement, adding that California had been “down this road before” in successfully fending off Justice Department lawsuits about its sanctuary city policies. “California fought Trump and Sessions on their immigration lawsuit—California won—and California will fight this lawsuit as well.”

This anti-Trump zeal might be good for rallying progressive activists, but appears unlikely to save S.B. 822 from the legal challenge.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2zJW67v
via IFTTT

FBI Instructed To Expand Kavanaugh Probe After Trump Clashes With Reporters

The White House has instructed the FBI to expand its investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to the New York Times, citing two people briefed on the matter. The new directive comes on the heels of a contentious Monday afternoon Rose Garden press conference held to discuss the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico. 

Earlier in the presser, Trump became visibly annoyed at questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, telling her “Don’t do that” when she began with Kavanaugh questions. 

Trump came under fire over the weekend for limiting the scope of the investigation to the first two Kavanaugh accusers, while not pursuing a third – Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of running a date-rape gang-bang scheme at 10 high school parties in which boys were “lined up” outside of rooms to rape inebriated women. 

Less than 24 hours after her attorney, Michael Avenatti, revealed Swetnick’s salacious claim, Politico reported that her ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy – a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she’s lying. 

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.” –Politico

I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more.”

Trump said during Monday’s press conference “It wouldn’t bother me at all” if Swetnick were interviewed by the FBI, adding “Now I don’t know all three of the accusers. Certainly I imagine they’re going to interview two. The third one I don’t know much about.”

The President ordered the one-week FBI investigation on Friday after lame-duck GOP Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona cast the Senate floor vote into disarray by refusing to vote “yes” on Kavanaugh unless the more than three-decade-old claims were investigated. 

The White House, however, limited the inquisition to just four individuals; Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser – high school friends of Kavanaugh’s that accuser Christine Blasey Ford says were at a party where she was groped – and who have all denied any knowledge of the incident. The fourth person to be questioned is Deborah Ramirez, another accuser who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party at which she admits she was extremely inebriated. 

In interviews, several former senior F.B.I. officials said that they could think of no previous instance when the White House restricted the bureau’s ability to interview potential witnesses during a background check. Chuck Rosenberg, who served as chief of staff under James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, said background investigations were frequently reopened, but that the bureau decides how to pursue new allegations. –NYT

“The White House normally tells the F.B.I. what issue to examine, but would not tell the F.B.I. how to examine it, or with whom they should speak,” said Rosenberg. “It’s highly unusual — in fact, as far I know, uniquely so — for the F.B.I. to be directed to speak only to a limited number of designated people.” 

In his Monday comments, Trump said that he would reconsider Kavanaugh’s nomination if the FBI turned up any evidence that warranted it. 

“Certainly if they find something I’m going to take that into consideration,” said Trump, adding “Absolutely. I have a very open mind. The person that takes that position is going to be there a long time.

In a five-page assessment, Rachel Mitchell – the veteran sex crimes prosecutor used by the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Kavanaugh and Ford, she notes: that a “‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

Michell writes: “I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” 

We assume the same can be said for Kavanaugh’s other accusers, however we’ll just have to wait to see what the FBI concludes – along with what new claims will be brought in the interim, as we seem to get a new one every couple of days. 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2DKYor5 Tyler Durden

Kanye West Doesn’t Want to Bring Back Slavery. He’s Trying to Abolish It for Good.

Kanye West, the Trump- and Kaepernick-loving rapper, seems to take pleasure in bridging partisan divides in the most controversial ways possible. Yesterday he put on a red MAGA hat and Tweeted this:

Cue the outrage. This time around, West’s critics include Captain America star Chris Evans, Arrested Development actor David Cross, and Matter of Fact anchor Soledad O’Brien. The general sentiment seems to be: Why abolish the amendment that abolished slavery? “Is there making sense of Kanye West’s Maddening Slavery Tweet?” blares Esquire‘s headline. Others, such as singer Lana Del Rey, just couldn’t get past the rapper’s support for Trump.

But it shouldn’t have been hard to discern West’s meaning, even if he expressed it in a confusing way. As he later clarified, he doesn’t want to kill the whole 13th Amendment—just the passage that still allows involuntary servitude “as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

Without that change, he writes, the amendment allows “slavery in disguise.”

In the years after the Civil War, many black convicts were forced to participate in “convict leasing” programs, where their unpaid labor benefitted private companies. Such programs no longer exist, but as Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella noted in August, many states still force inmates of all races to work for nothing or close to it. The Marshall Project reports that “the average pay for a prisoner working a job in a state prison facility is 20 cents an hour.” In Texas, Georgia, and Arkansas, inmates aren’t paid at all for their labor.

When inmates in more than a dozen states went on strike in August, their demands included “an immediate end to prison slavery.” Contrary to popular opinion, “the 13th Amendment didn’t abolish slavery,” Amani Sawari, a spokesperson for the strikes, told Vox at the time. “It wrote slavery into the Constitution.”

Kanye West isn’t the first rapper to address this. Killer Mike covered the issue in his 2012 song “Reagan”:

‘Cause free labor is the cornerstone of U.S. economics
‘Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison
You think I am bullshitting, then read the 13th Amendment
Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits
That’s why they giving drug offenders time in double digits.

And in 2016, the Oscar-nominated documentary 13th explored how inmates are punished with forced labor. That said, 13th director Ava DuVernay doesn’t seem to be a big fan of West’s views on the subject.

It’s possible West’s red hat served as a red cape that distracted people from what he was saying. The timing also didn’t help, as the post came the day after West defended Trump on the Saturday Night Live stage.

If nothing else, West does us a service by reminding us that a person’s views do not have to be—and, outside the professional political world, often aren’t—a perfect fit with any political party’s. It may seem odd on the cable news channels to support Donald Trump and criminal justice reform at the same time, but the world is larger than the cable news channels.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2QhO6jq
via IFTTT

Flake Admits He Wouldn’t Have Sabotaged Kavanaugh Confirmation If He Wasn’t Retiring

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) admitted Sunday night on 60 Minutes that he wouldn’t have thrown the Kavanaugh confirmation into disarray if he was running for office again. 

The retiring Senator demanded an FBI investigation into 11th hour claims by several women that the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted them, despite the fact that the accusers have foggy memories and dubious, uncorroborated accounts. 

When asked if he would have asked for the new probe if he were up for reelection in the November midterms, Flake responded: “Not a chance,” adding “There’s no value in reaching across the aisle… there’s no currency for that anymore. There’s no incentive.” 

After failing to convince the Judiciary Committee to abstain from voting pending an FBI investigation, he insisted that he would vote “no” on the full Senate floor – and was joined by Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski – one day after she was seen being badgered in a hallways by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). 

Flake and Murkowski’s gambit meant that the Senate wouldn’t have the majority required to advance Kavanaugh. 

In the meantime, the left continues to pound on Kavanaugh’s record, while the FBI probe has bought time for new accusers to emerge. As we reported Sunday, with Washington in a frenzy over the FBI’s probe of Judge Kavanaugh, which according to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley would be no more than a week long and would be limited solely to “current credible allegations”, a new and potentially explosive allegation has emerged.

Late on Sunday, Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told the Washington Post that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

What prompted this latest last minute memory “recollection” by a peer of Kavanaugh’s? According to the report, Ludington was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.

“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However … if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”

The NYT also got an interview out of Ludington, and reported that Ludington said he frequently saw Judge Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption” during their student years. He said he planned to tell his story to the F.B.I. at its office in Raleigh, N.C., on Monday.

Kavanaugh told outside counsel Rachel Mitchell during the hearing that he has never “passed out” from drinking. “I’ve gone to sleep,” he said. “But I’ve never blacked out, that’s the allegation. And that’s, that’s wrong.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Oxb09g Tyler Durden