Today Justice Breyer formally announced his retirement in a letter to the President. As usual, with Breyer, nothing is simple. His retirement is contingent on several conditional statements. Breyer wrote that “I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed.” So, for at least the next five months or longer, Breyer remains on the Court.
Later, Breyer appeared at the White House alongside the President in the Roosevelt Room. Breyer made brief, rambling remarks that touched on the Gettysburg Address. After Breyer finished, the President invited Justice Breyer and his wife to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom, which has a handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address.
President Biden invites Justice Breyer and his wife to come and stay in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House.
My mind immediately jumped to controversies over how President Clinton rewarded his donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom. My next thought was, the United States still has cases pending in the Supreme Court, both as a party and as amicus. Again, Justice Breyer hasn’t retired yet. And, to be frank, Breyer hasn’t stepped down until he finally steps down. We know announcements of resignation can be modified or even rescinded. In my view, making an offer for a night in the White House, however gracious, to a sitting Supreme Court Justice, strikes me as problematic.
Breyer may have a precedent to fall back on. Remember when Justice Scalia took a hunting trip with Vice President Cheney? Scalia vigorously defended his independence. Then again, Scalia’s opinion distinguished his conduct from a private gathering at the White House:
The principal point, however, is that social courtesies, provided at Government expense by officials whose only business before the Court is business in their official capacity, have not hitherto been thought prohibited. Members of Congress and others are frequently invited to accompany Executive Branch officials on Government planes, where space is available. That this is not the sort of gift thought likely to affect a judge’s impartiality is suggested by the fact that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5 U. S. C. App. §101 et seq., p. 38, which requires annual reporting of transportation provided or reimbursed, excludes from this requirement transportation provided by the United States. See §109(5)(C); Committee on Financial Disclosure, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, Financial Disclosure Report: Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, p. 25 (Jan. 2003). I daresay that, at a hypothetical charity auction, much more would be bid for dinner for two at the White House than for a one-way flight to Louisiana on the Vice President’s jet. Justices accept the former with regularity. While this matter was pending, Justices and their spouses were invited (all of them, I believe) to a December 11, 2003, Christmas reception at the residence of the Vice Presi-dent—which included an opportunity for a photograph with the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney. Several of the Justices attended, and in doing so they were fully in accord with the proprieties.
But Biden did not invite all of the Justices. He invited only one of them for a private stay.
Justice Breyer probably won’t take Biden up on this offer. And the White House may see fit to withdraw the offer.
The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released a new statement yesterday purporting to outline the FOMC’s plans for the next several months. According to the committee’s press release:
With inflation well above 2 percent and a strong labor market, the Committee expects it will soon be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate. The Committee decided to continue to reduce the monthly pace of its net asset purchases, bringing them to an end in early March. Beginning in February, the Committee will increase its holdings of Treasury securities by at least $20 billion per month and of agency mortgage‑backed securities by at least $10 billion per month. The Federal Reserve’s ongoing purchases and holdings of securities will continue to foster smooth market functioning and accommodative financial conditions, thereby supporting the flow of credit to households and businesses.
The lesson here is that even when inflation is high and the labor market is supposedly strong, the Fed will still only proceed toward tapering and tightening in the slowest, most cautious manner possible.
Although price inflation is at a 40-year high, the Fed is still unwilling to commit to a rate hike in March, and it’s planning to only end new asset purchases for its balance sheet by March. The Fed still refuses to acknowledge any connection between inflation and the incredibly large amounts of money creation and credit creation fostered by the Fed over the past decade, and especially over the past two years. After all, in its statement, the Fed emphasized that “supply and demand imbalances related to the pandemic and the reopening of the economy have continued to contribute to elevated levels of inflation.”
All of this, however, only amounts to what the Fed is willing to say right now. The “plans” outlined here are no more than the stated, tentative plans for the FOMC. Whether or not any of this actually happens is another matter.
The Fed Is Prepared to Turn More Dovish at the First Sign of Trouble
Indeed, the Fed’s fear and lack of backbone was much more clearly emphasized in Jay Powell’s Q and A with reporters which followed the release of the FOMC’s statement.
During the presser, Powell repeatedly emphasized that the Fed must remain flexible and that the targeted policies could change at any time, depending on the economic situation. “We need to be adaptable,” he said, and managed to include the typical dovish remarks when he stated that really the current goal with the balance sheet is—at some point—“allowing the balance sheet to begin to run off.” Although the press released mentioned movement toward quantitative tightening for the balance sheet, Powell repeatedly downplayed this in the Q and A.
So, while some news reports covering the Fed’s announcements today appear to conclude that the Fed will surely begin raising rates in March, that remains very much up in the air. And beyond that, the lack of focus on the balance sheet in Powell’s remarks suggested that the Fed is still very much only at the stage of merely contemplating an end to new additions to the Fed’s portfolio. Actual reductions are still not on the table.
Indeed, it still looks like we’re looking at a repeat of 2016 when the Fed claimed it was going to implement four rate hikes that year. Only one rate hike actually occurred. Anticipated rate hikes based on Fed signals also failed to appear in 2019, when Fed wathers at Goldman and JP Morgan predicted four Fed hikes that year. What actually happened was one rate hike (from 2% to 2.25%) followed by rate cuts later in the year. That’s likely what Powell is referring to when he says the Fed must be adaptable and flexible. It must be prepared to become even more dovish at any given time.
The Fed Admits Price Inflation Is Actually a Problem
In any case, politically, it is clear that the Fed has been feeling the pressure on price inflation. The Fed has clearly now abandoned its position—expressed repeatedly last fall that inflation is “transitory” and no big deal. Powell yesterday admitted price inflation “hasn’t gotten better. It’s probably gotten a bit worse … I think to the extent the situation deteriorates further, our policy will have to address that.”
Powell also stated what has long been obvious about price inflation—namely that it hurts the lowest-income people in the population. “Some people are just really prone to suffer more” from inflation, Powell said. He noted that inflation for the wealthy can be unfortunate, but that “it’s particularly hard on people with fixed income and low income.” It’s hard on people with lower incomes, of course, because those people have to spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food, gasoline, and other basic necessities. Many can’t afford to be homeowners—thanks to easy-money fueled asset price inflation—so must keep up with rising rents.
This, of course, pours cold water on all those columns from financial columnists in recent months who have been repeatedly penning articles on how price inflation is actually good for most everyone because when there’s inflation, debtors repay their debts in devalued dollars. That narrative, of course, is based on the myth that it’s lopsidedly ordinary people and lower-income people who benefit from devaluing debt payments. In reality, inflation tends to favor people and organizations with more wealth and higher incomes because it’s those people who are most able to access large loans on favorable terms. Much of the time, people with few assets and low incomes can’t get loans at all. Or they can obtain these loans at much higher interest rates which greatly reduce the benefits of paying off debts with devalued dollars.
One example of this is a column by Allison Morrow last month in which she writes:
But on the whole, inflation can actually be a good thing for many working-class Americans, especially those with fixed-rate debt like a 30-year mortgage. That’s because wages are going up, which not only empowers workers but also gives them more money to pay down debt. Plus, in the case of a mortgage, your monthly payment will be the same but your house will increase in value…
The idea that “wages are going up” whenever there is inflation is rather fanciful. As we’ve seen, inflation has been outpacing wages, meaning real wages are going down. So no, there is absolutely no guarantee at all that wages will be going up when price inflation surges.
Note also the old canard that rising home prices are generally a boon. Rising real estate prices are no great thing for renters, of course, but they also present a big hurdle for potential first-time home buyers who are being priced out of the market. Rising home prices also mean higher property taxes. In fact, rising home prices are only an unmitigated good for those who plan to downsize their homes and move to cheaper markets. Otherwise, one’s rising home prices are only helping one keep up with the marketplace, since inflation provides no windfall for someone moving from one house to a comparably priced house on the other side of town. It’s all just a wash at best
As a final sign of dovishness of the Fed’s overall position, we can also note one especially good question from the gallery yesterday. One of the journalists asked if the Fed would allow the inflation rate to fall below the target two-percent rate so as to achieve the much-touted “two-percent average.” This question was in reference to the Fed’s move in recent years toward not targeting “two percent inflation” at all times, but rather a two-percent average.” What that meant in practice was the Fed would allow inflation to run above two percent if inflation ever dipped below two percent, so as to balance it all out at two percent. Yet, now that price inflation is well above the two-percent target, this raises the reasonable question of whether or not the Fed will target something below two-percent to achieve an average at two percent over time. Powell stated that no, the Fed has no plans to deliberately push inflation below two percent at any time. In other words, the two-percent average targe only applies when it’s an excuse to keep inflation above two percent.
Overall, the impression one gets from watching the Fed yesterday is that it’s most certainly not in control of the situation and is hoping to muddle through.
It’s still unclear which way the Fed will go, however.
Will it choose inflation or recession?
Either way, a lot of people are likely in a lot of trouble.
Solid, Stopping Through 7Y Auction Boosted By Surge In Direct Demand
After two stellar auctions, including a blockbuster 2Y and a record-beating 5Y earlier this week, moments ago the Treasury concluded the week’s coupon issuance when it sold $53BN in 7 year paper in yet another strong auction.
The high yield of 1.769% was the highest since December 2019, certainly higher than December’s 1.480% amid the current ongoing rate-hike panic, but stopped 0.1bps through the 1.770% When Issued, only the second stop through in the past 7 auctions, of which 5 tailed.
The bid to cover rose modestly from 2.21 in December to 2.36, which was above the recent six-auction average of 2.28, and despite the recent tightening frenzy, was high above “that” infamous 7Y auction in Feb 2021 when it tumbled to a record low of 2.045.
The internals were relatively unchanged, with Indirects posting a strong number, rising to 62.7% from 59.3%, above the recent average of 60.3%, and with Directs rising to 22.9%, Dealers ended up taking just 14.5%, the lowest since Feb 2018.
Overall, a solid if hardly remarkable auction, and the weakest of this week’s three coupon sales, although considering how strong the 2Y and 5Y sales were, this is hardly a criticism.
In response to the auction, the 10Y barely budged, trading just off the session lows.
Finally, a reason to keep an eye on the 7Y for the rest of the day is to see if yields dip more: as of this moment, the 7s10s curve is just 2bps wide, and at the rate the curve is collapsing it will soon join the 20s30s in curve inversion.
‘Anti-Work’ Reddit Goes Private After Moderator Gives Cringe Fox News Interview
On Wednesday, a moderator from the popular Reddit forum r/antiwork bombed a Fox News interview that led other moderators to take immediate action by temporarily making the subreddit “private.”
A 30yo moderator named “Doreen,” a self-proclaimed dog-walker who works 20 to 25 hours per week, spoke with Fox News anchor Jesse Watters about the subreddit where users discuss the need for labor reforms due to overworking, terrible pay, and awful pandemic working conditions.
Watters told Doreen he disagreed with the group, saying it suppressed ambition.
“Why do you like the idea of being home, not working, but still getting paid by corporate America,” Watters asked.
“We’re a movement where we want to reduce the amount of work people feel they are forced to do,” Doreen said. “We want to put it in effort, put in labor, but we don’t necessarily want to be in a position where we feel trapped.”
Unconvinced, Watters told the moderator about the potential consequences of preaching anti-work. “It sounds like people are being lazy. Are you encouraging people to be lazy?”
“It’s good to have rest, that doesn’t mean you should rest all the time or not be putting time into things you care about,” Doreen responded.
Doreen, unprepared for the interview, got what Fox News wanted: paint the group as “lazy.”
The interview was such as disaster (which we questioned: why was this mod allowed to speak?) that other mods quickly made the 1.7 million strong subreddit private.
Business Insider suspects the subreddit went private after a barrage of users were furious with the mod who gave the interview. Other mods banned people left and right as the subreddit spiraled out of control.
On Thursday morning, the subreddit appears to be reopened, and mods have released a statement a brilliant statement:
“We’re going in the short-term future not accept any media interviews and we will ask the community on feedback regarding whether we will accept an interview or what kind of media outlets are outright banned.”
In the article, I argued that time has run out for the Fed, who is now stuck between a rock and hard place with inflation spiraling out of control and the stock market crashing. I made the point that the once willfully ignorant commonfolk were starting to wake up – and that we’d now be holding the Fed’s feet to the fire in a way we never have before in American history.
I wrote that “today, the fabric of our modern banking world is held together by a logical fallacy of a system, wherein central banks are afforded the asinine luxury of being able to print infinite amounts of ‘money’, which is then disproportionately distributed toward the ruling class, billionaires, and elites, instead of the people who need it the most.”
I backed up my argument by showing this chart, which clearly shows a widening income gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” that has gotten larger, consistently, since the late 1970’s.
I also wrote an article weeks ago called “Soaring Inflation Is Brutalizing The Lower And Middle Class” which I supplemented with a podcast explaining “why it’s important for people to wake up to the negative consequences of inflation right now, before it becomes too late.”
And, lo and behold, just hours after I published this morning’s article, Jerome Powell exemplified the arrogance and ignorance that I, and many others, have been taking exception with for years.
During the middle of Jerome Powell’s press conference today, which supplemented the release of a Fed statement at about 2:00PM EST, Rachel Siegel from the Washington Post asked the following excellent question:
“I’m wondering if you can talk to us about any metrics the Fed uses to assess how inflation affects different groups of Americans, especially lower income earners, and are you worried that the Fed underestimates or can’t effectively measure the effect of inflation on some of the most vulnerable households.”
Powell stumbled his way through the beginning of an answer:
“It’s more a matter of uh…I think the problem we’re talking about here is really that people who are living on fixed incomes, who are living paycheck to paycheck. They’re spending most or all of their…of…of…what they’re earning on food, gasoline, rent, heating their…heating, things like that. Basic necessities. So, inflation, right away…right away…forces people like that to make very difficult decisions. That’s really the point.”
So far, so good, Jerome. Sounds like a massive fucking problem for a good portion of the country, right? But then, there was this:
“I’m not aware of um, you know, inflation literally falling more on different socioeconomic groups. That’s not the point. The point is some people are just really prone to suffer more.”
But if you’re not aware of it “falling more” on different socioeconomic groups, what’s to be said for the lower class who are “really prone to suffer more?”
Today’s blog post has been published without a paywall because I believe the content to be far too important. However, if you have the means and would like to support my work by subscribing, I’d be happy to offer you 22% off for 2022:
Powell continued the final toss of his word salad before moving onto the next question:
“For people who are economically well off, inflation isn’t good, it’s bad…high inflation is bad. But they’re going to be able to continue to eat, and keep their homes and drive their cars and things like that…its…so that’s really how I think of it.”
If it’s bad for the top earners, Jerome, why does the wealth gap continue to widen?
Powell’s answer was dripping with equal parts nervousness (as I truly believe, after watching him squirm today, he knows there is no way out for the Fed) and elitism and arrogance.
I wrote at the end of this morning’s article:
And here’s a message to the bankers, elites and central planners to read carefully: we are all already on notice. We now know how the rigged game works and we plan on placing under a microscope every decision that is made from this point going forward.
We will not relinquish further civil rights and we believe that, through decades of living through this planned system that has usurped us of power and liberties unknowingly and unwillingly already, we have earned the right to criticize any and all proposed solutions that don’t act in the interest of freedom and liberty. We will do this peacefully, as I am doing today, by exercising our first amendment rights and doing our part to educate and inform those around us of what has clearly come into focus to those of us with our eyes wide open.
But hey – why worry about the country’s lower income earners, right Jerome?
You can watch Powell fumble his way through the answer here:
Today, Lora Burnett, a former Collin College history professor fired for tweets critical of the college administration and of former Vice President Mike Pence, accepted the college’s offer to pay $70,000 and attorneys’ fees, bringing her First Amendment lawsuit to an end.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education represented Burnett. Although the college has not admitted liability, it has effectively chosen to concede the lawsuit by offering judgment in favor of Burnett….
During the vice presidential debate in October 2020, Burnett tweeted: “The moderator needs to talk over Mike Pence until he shuts his little demon mouth up.” The tweet was picked up by conservative mediaoutlets and outraged Texas State Rep. Jeff Leach, who texted Collin College President Neil Matkin to ask if Burnett was “paid with taxpayer dollars.” Matkin responded that he would “deal with it.”
Burnett landed on Matkin’s radar again in January 2021 with a tweet countering his assessment that the pandemic was “blown utterly out of proportion.” Burnett shared a link to an obituary of a former Collin professor, tweeting “Another @collincollege professor has died of COVID.” The college responded by issuing Burnett a formal warning.
During this time, FIRE wrote repeatedletters to the college president, advising him of Burnett’s rights and reminding him of the college’s constitutional obligations. Public institutions are bound by the First Amendment; as such, it is unconstitutional to terminate a faculty member based on comments about matters of public concern.
In February, Leach prematurely tweeted that Burnett had been fired, which he characterized as a “BIG WIN.” Nine days later, the college followed through. In response, FIRE and Burnett filed a First Amendment lawsuit….
Burnett is the third faculty member disciplined by Collin College in 2021 for exercising their First Amendment rights.
On Jan. 28, professors Audra Heaslip and Suzanne Jones — who represent two-thirds of the leadership of a local chapter of the Texas Faculty Association, a non-bargaining union — were informed that their contracts would not be renewed, due to objections from senior administrators. The college cited the professors’ criticism of the college’s decision to reopen amidst the pandemic, references to the college’s name on the TFA’s website, and Jones’ signature on a public letter urging the removal of Confederate statues.
Jones has filed a lawsuit against Collin College that is currently pending….
Watch Live: Biden Meets Retiring-Justice Breyer, White House Renews Promise To Appoint Black Woman To SCOTUS
President Joe Biden and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will formally announce Breyer’s retirement this morning, clearing the way for Biden’s first nomination to the nation’s highest court.
Justice Breyer just issued a letter announcing his retirement.
“I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed.”
Watch his remarks along with the president live here (due to start at 1230ET):
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate would move quickly to replace Breyer with Biden’s nominee.
“We can’t risk losing yet another seat on the high court to the radical, anti-democracy right,” Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones, a New York progressive, said in a statement.
Biden should nominate “someone who is not hostile to the fundamental right to vote, who respects precedents like Roe v. Wade, who believes in the science of vaccines, and who respects the constitutional prerogatives of Congress.”
But the hearings for Biden’s eventual nominee are set to become a proxy fight for the high-stakes battle for control of Congress in the November election.
“There is no greater issue to the Republican base than the Supreme Court,” said Kyle Plotkin, a GOP strategist and former chief of staff to Missouri Republican Josh Hawley.
“It would be political malpractice if Republicans let this nomination go through without a fight.”
As Jonathan Turley notes, Biden’s controversial use of racial and gender criteria will only grow in the coming months as the Supreme Court considers two new cases involving racial preferences in college admissions. Those cases may now be heard before a Court with one member who was expressly selected initially on the basis of not of a racial preference but a racial exclusionary rule.
Biden’s record on racial discrimination as president has not been good.
It is the same type of threshold use of race that resulted in federal programs in the Biden Administration being struck down as raw racial discrimination, including prioritizing black farmers for pandemic relief.
There is also a current controversy in the Biden Administration’s use of race in distributing scarce Covid treatments. As with cities like New York, the Biden Administration has endorsed the use of race to give priority to African Americans in receiving such treatments. It was entirely unnecessary.
It is equally baffling why Biden needed to exclude other races and genders rather than include those issues as what the Court called a “plus” on admissions.
Nothing, of course, prevented Biden from, like Reagan, seeking and selecting a female black candidate.
That is why Biden’s decision to impose a racial and gender exclusionary rule was a political, not a practical choice. Yet, it will now unnecessarily add a controversy to this nomination. The short list of judges include some who would be natural candidates on any vacancy. President Biden has saddled the eventual choice with an asterisk nomination that is unfair to both the nominee and the Court.
But, as Nick Ciolino detailed earlier at The Epoch Times White House press secretary Jen Psaki refused to answer speculative questions about the future of the Supreme Court but did say that President Joe Biden remains committed to his campaign promise to appoint the first ever black woman to the high court in the event of a vacancy.
This after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued a statement Jan. 26 saying that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire at the end of the court’s term this summer. Several Democratic congressional members then followed with calls on Biden to nominate a black woman.
“The president has stated and reiterated his commitment to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court and certainly stands by that,” Psaki said.
“For today, again, I’m just not going to be able to say anything about any specifics until, of course, Justice Breyer makes any announcement, should he decide to make an announcement.”
At a campaign event last summer, Biden said that he is “putting together a list of African-American women who are qualified and have the experience to be on the court,” and added that he’s “not going to release that until we go further down the line in vetting them as well.”
Breyer, 83, has served as a Supreme Court justice for more than 30 years. He was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and is considered to be part of the high court’s liberal-leaning wing. Were he to step down, it would pave the way for Biden to appoint his first Supreme Court justice.
Some have speculated that Vice President Kamala Harris—who previously served as attorney general for the state of California—could be a potential choice for a vacant seat. Psaki on Wednesday repeated her previous statement saying that Biden intends to run again in 2024 with Harris on the ticket.
Supreme Court appointments have been highly contentious political events in recent years, with nearly all Democrats voting to block former President Donald Trump’s three picks.
Jared Carter, an assistant professor at Vermont Law School, told The Epoch Times on Wednesday that he expects Republicans to fight a Biden nomination as aggressively as Democrat’s did the Trump nominations. But he noted that the Democrats hold a slim majority in the Senate and that Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have both voted independent of Biden’s agenda in the past.
“My sense is certainly that Biden recognizes that he’s going to have to appease every Democrat, and that includes Sens. Sinema and Manchin, and so I think that means we’re going to see, certainly, not a ‘far-left’ nominee,” Carter said. “We’re much more likely to see a centrist jurist—someone who doesn’t have a reputation one way or the other.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of the pending retirement, “There will be immense pressure from the radical left to replace Justice Breyer with a partisan who will legislate from the bench, and I hope President Biden will not cave to their demands the way he has on nearly everything else the past year.”
Schumer said Biden’s nominee “will receive a prompt hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be considered and confirmed by the full United States Senate with all deliberate speed.”
If Breyer does decide to retire at the end of the Supreme Court term this summer, he will likely vote on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—a case that examines the constitutionality of a law from Mississippi that would ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest—before he vacates his seat.
As we detailed yesterday, Democratic insiders are whispering about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed last summer to the Washington DC Court of Appeals (seen as a stepping stone to the nation’s highest court), being the top candidate since President Biden has said he would nominate a black woman, what would be a first for the court. But KBJ, as she has become known, isn’t the only contender.
Ketanji Brown Jackson
According to NYTimes,California Supreme Court JusticeLeondra Kruger is also in the running, having served as an acting deputy solicitor general in the Obama administration, presenting 12 arguments on behalf of the federal government. Like four of the current justices, she graduated from Yale Law School. Like six of the justices, she served as a law clerk on the Supreme Court, for former Justice John Paul Stevens.
KBJ was on President Obama’s shortlist for the court in 2016, and Kruger (also a black woman) served as assistant, and then deputy solicitor general in both Democratic and Republican administrations prior to her nomination to California’s highest court.
U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs is also a potential contender – albeit an outside bet – with a big ally. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, told Vice President Kamala Harris and the White House counsel, Dana Remus, that whenever an opening emerged on the court, Mr. Biden should nominate a little-known federal judge in his home state: J. Michelle Childs. In one of her more high-profile cases, Judge Childs struck down a South Carolina rule during the 2020 election that would have required a witness to sign absentee ballots.
All three women are young for SCOTUS: Brown Jackson is 51, Kruger is 45, and Childs is 55. And Brown Jackson and Kruger for sure possess the legal credentials necessary to potentially attract a moderate Republican or two. There is no filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
* * *
Finally, because sometimes we all need a laugh, Babylon Bee yesterday reported it had received an exclusive look at Biden’s list of potential SCOTUS nominees. Surprisingly, they’re not all black women.
DISCLAIMER: The following list of names and comments are taken verbatim from Biden’s list and do not reflect the views of The Babylon Bee.
Queen Latifa: She’s black, female, and sassy! That’s a win-win-win scenario.
Michelle Obama: Barack will kill me if I don’t nominate her.
Rachel Dolezal: A woman who is also black.
Whoopi Goldberg: She was a nun. That’ll help me look Catholic! Actually– maybe we can just replace the whole court with The View. Gotta’ ask Jill.
Aunt Jemima: I can’t believe they fired that poor woman. The Pearl Mining Company just wants to keep her in chains!
Mrs. Butterworth: She’s probably black. I can’t tell.
Peter Dinklage: He could use a boost.
Xi Jinping: We already have a good working relationship.
Greta Thunberg: Our court would be well served by this infallible child of light. She’s black, right?
Hunter Biden: He should fit right in. This may be the easiest nominee to push through. Gotta’ tell Jill.
Donald Trump: The only way to keep him from running for President.
Vladimir Putin: The only way to keep him from invading Ukraine.
Kamala Harris: The only way to keep her from killing me. Plus, she’s black! (Editor’s Note: The word ‘black’ was circled three times)
Noticeably absent from the list is former Obama appointee, Merrick Garland. Sources confirm he doesn’t tick any intersectional boxes which makes him a major liability.
Today, Lora Burnett, a former Collin College history professor fired for tweets critical of the college administration and of former Vice President Mike Pence, accepted the college’s offer to pay $70,000 and attorneys’ fees, bringing her First Amendment lawsuit to an end.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education represented Burnett. Although the college has not admitted liability, it has effectively chosen to concede the lawsuit by offering judgment in favor of Burnett….
During the vice presidential debate in October 2020, Burnett tweeted: “The moderator needs to talk over Mike Pence until he shuts his little demon mouth up.” The tweet was picked up by conservative mediaoutlets and outraged Texas State Rep. Jeff Leach, who texted Collin College President Neil Matkin to ask if Burnett was “paid with taxpayer dollars.” Matkin responded that he would “deal with it.”
Burnett landed on Matkin’s radar again in January 2021 with a tweet countering his assessment that the pandemic was “blown utterly out of proportion.” Burnett shared a link to an obituary of a former Collin professor, tweeting “Another @collincollege professor has died of COVID.” The college responded by issuing Burnett a formal warning.
During this time, FIRE wrote repeatedletters to the college president, advising him of Burnett’s rights and reminding him of the college’s constitutional obligations. Public institutions are bound by the First Amendment; as such, it is unconstitutional to terminate a faculty member based on comments about matters of public concern.
In February, Leach prematurely tweeted that Burnett had been fired, which he characterized as a “BIG WIN.” Nine days later, the college followed through. In response, FIRE and Burnett filed a First Amendment lawsuit….
Burnett is the third faculty member disciplined by Collin College in 2021 for exercising their First Amendment rights.
On Jan. 28, professors Audra Heaslip and Suzanne Jones — who represent two-thirds of the leadership of a local chapter of the Texas Faculty Association, a non-bargaining union — were informed that their contracts would not be renewed, due to objections from senior administrators. The college cited the professors’ criticism of the college’s decision to reopen amidst the pandemic, references to the college’s name on the TFA’s website, and Jones’ signature on a public letter urging the removal of Confederate statues.
Jones has filed a lawsuit against Collin College that is currently pending….
