Destroying the Supreme Court – and the Country along with it

 Jonathan Turley gets it right again.

The Democrats are on a path to destroy the US Supreme Court, which will also destroy the form of government the Founders intended.

Here is JT's column.

-------------------------------------------

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the range of options referenced by Vice President Joe Biden in the last debate that may be considered by his new “commission” for reforming the Supreme Court. It is worth looking at the parade of horribles proposed by academics for changing the Court to legislatively negate the majority of conservative justices after the addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the Court (as early as today). The concern is that this is little beyond enablement by commission as Democrats claim license to do lasting harm to one of the most important institutions in our constitutional system.

Here is the column:

The vote on Monday to make Judge Amy Coney Barrett the 115th Supreme Court justice will be more than a confirmation. It will be a dispensation, according to former Vice President Joe Biden and various Democratic senators. They have cited the vote as relieving them of any guilt in fundamentally changing the court to manufacture a liberal majority. Like school kids daring others to step over a line as an excuse to fight, Democrats insist that filling this vacancy will invite changes ranging from “packing” the court to stripping it of authority to rule in certain cases.

The problem is that the line the Senate will step over is set by the Constitution, while the proposals by Democrats would retaliate against the use of a power granted by the Constitution. Democrats are floating a parade of horribles to “reform” the Supreme Court and negate its growing conservative majority. Biden said this week that the court is “out of whack” and, as president, he would assemble a commission of “experts” to explore “a number of alternatives that go well beyond packing.” The commission would report to him 180 days after his inauguration.

Polls show almost 60 percent of Americans oppose the court packing scheme supported by Democrats, including Biden’s running mate, Senator Kamala Harris. One person not polled was the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who denounced such a scheme as guaranteeing the court’s destruction.

A New York Times and Siena College poll found only 31 percent favor court packing. That is a familiar figure: For the last four years, the same 30 percent of both parties have supported the most destructive political measures and rhetoric. Those extremes continue to control our politics, while the vast majority of us in the middle watch in disbelief as virtually every Democratic senator embraces one of the most reviled tactics in American history. Those senators are not alone. A host of professors (who likely will be on the short list for Biden’s commission) are giving credibility to court packing.

Harvard professor Michael Klarman attacked the foundations of Congress before attacking the foundations of the court. Klarman condemned a “malapportionment” in the Senate that he believes gives Republicans greater power, and referred to their refusal to vote on Obama court nominee Merrick Garland as “stealing a seat.” While controversial (and I was among those calling for a vote on Garland), that decision was clearly constitutional. Yet Klarman illogically calls it “court packing” to justify any act of retaliation: “Democrats are not initiating this spiral. They are simply responding in kind.”

He then says not to worry about Republicans responding with their own court packing when they return to power. He insists Democrats can change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election,” at least not without abandoning their values. Of course, Klarman concedes “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described” so the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur. Here are some of the other wacky ideas to get the court back into “whack.”

Jurisdiction stripping

Several professors argue for a court packing alternative that moves to the opposite approach: If you cannot make the court bigger, then shrink its authority. By using “jurisdiction stripping,” Democrats would bar federal courts from reviewing certain types of legislation. So, faced with a conservative court, a Democratic Congress would make the courts into a nullity to give itself unchecked authority in various areas. Assuming courts would allow such a move, it would create a race to the bottom as more and more legislation was protected from judicial review.

Supermajority voting

Another approach is to leave the Supreme Court at its current size but effectively “pack” the vote by requiring supermajority decisions. A Democratic Congress would enhance the votes of the court’s minority by requiring a two-thirds vote or even unanimity for certain types of cases or laws. It is an ironic idea since, against the advice of many, Democrats got rid of the Senate filibuster for judicial nominations when it held the majority — fundamentally changing longtime protections for a Senate minority. In this case, Democrats would designate favored areas or types of cases protected by supermajority rules, thereby manipulating the court’s votes.

Balanced bench

Pete Buttigieg and some academics have proposed disregarding any pretense of nonpartisan justices. They would convert the court into a kind of judicial Federal Communications Commission, with Democrats and Republicans each picking five justices who would then pick five more from federal appeals courts to serve terms of one year. That would make the Supreme Court a crude reflection of our dysfunctional political times.

Notably, the Supreme Court is reviewing such a partisan court system in Carney versus Adams. The case must be familiar to Biden, since it deals with a moronic Delaware constitutional requirement that the five seats on the state’s Supreme Court be divided between Democrats and Republicans — preventing an independent from becoming a justice. In Delaware, a “balanced court” apparently means you must first establish that you are from the right party before you can mete out justice The proposal would have a continually shifting court and, since the five transient justices would be selected based on party affiliation, they likely would become pawns in a partisan calculation.

Another proposal would “solve” the “problem” of a conservative majority by literally turning every judge into an associate justice. A lottery would be held every two weeks to randomly select nine justices to hear cases, with each panel limited to no more than five judges nominated by a president of the same political party. Senator Bernie Sanders actually endorsed this looney idea. It is akin to the character “Syndrome” in “The Incredibles” explaining he would give everyone superpowers because “when everyone’s super … no one will be.” Most Americans are unlikely to want to replace today’s court with a law by lottery approach.

As someone who proposed expanding the Supreme Court decades ago, I am not opposed to reform. However, Biden’s proposed commission is not about reform. It is about packing, stacking, and stripping schemes to achieve political outcomes on the Supreme Court. Biden is offering up the institution to the 30 percent demanding extreme measures to satiate their anger. Biden once denounced court packing as a “bone headed idea” — but he may now appoint a commission to convert a variety of bone headed ideas into bona fide proposals.

Judith Curry: Climate Science and the Supreme Court

Judith Curry gets it right, again.

JC is a real climate scientist.

------------------------------------------

An alternative assessment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s statements on climate change.

For those of you not in the U.S., confirmation hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court are currently underway. There are many very political issues surrounding this nomination and its timing. Lets put all that aside for the moment, and consider her statements on climate change.

Barrett’s statements [link]:

“I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial.”

“I don’t think my views on climate change or global warming are relevant to the job I would do as a judge. Nor do I feel like I have views that are informed enough.”

“I’m certainly not a scientist,” she said when asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) whether she had a personal opinion on the issue. “I mean, I’ve read things about climate change. I would not say I have firm views on it.”

“I don’t think I’m competent to opine on what causes global warming or not.”

The twitterati are hysterical over these statements. From a Washington Post article:

“The judge’s exchange on climate change was short, but her critics say it is disqualifying”

“It is a requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be able to review evidence to make a decision,” he said. “The scientific evidence of climate change is beyond reasonable doubt or debate, yet Amy Coney Barrett refused to acknowledge reality.”

“A climate change case is already on the Supreme Court’s docket next year. It will hear a case involving several oil companies, including Dutch Royal Shell, being sued by the city of Baltimore, which is seeking to hold them financially responsible for their greenhouse gas contributions. Barrett’s father spent much of his own career as a lawyer for Shell. “

An article in the Esquire is entitled: Amy Coney Barrett’s answer on this climate change question is completely disqualifying.

“Put simply, this is just totally disqualifying for any official holding public office in the year 2020. This isn’t even an up-to-date Republican bullshit line on the topic. “I’m not a scientist” is so 2014, maybe because even the Elite Political Media—pockets of which are just today allowing themselves to be hoodwinked by another Emails caper—caught on to how dumb it is. Does Judge Amy Coney Barrett accept the scientific consensus that gravity is keeping her in that chair? If so, why? She’s not a scientist, so how could she possibly know?”

There are two issues here that deserve discussion:

• Whether ‘belief’ in climate change actually means anything when spouted by politicians and other non-scientists.

• What judges should be expected to know about climate science.

“I believe in climate science”

I think that Amy Coney Barrett’s answers to the climate question was admirable. She wanted to stay out of a contentious political debate. But more importantly she wasn’t going to pass a judgement on something for which she had not carefully evaluated the evidence and did not find herself qualified to make a judgement on. I thought her stance on this showed wisdom and humility.

In the 2016 presidential debates, Hillary Clinton said: “And I believe in science” , with specific reference to climate change.

In the political debate on climate change, ‘I believe in climate science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. They use such statements as a way of declaring belief in a scientific proposition that is outside their knowledge and understanding. The belief of individuals making such a statement is often more akin to believing in Santa Claus than relating to actual understanding of science. In the case of Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the U.S. Democratic National Convention, Clinton’s appeal to science was a partisan rallying cry that was coupled to the mockery of Donald Trump and his supporters as ‘anti-science.’

In the context of the climate change, ‘I believe in science’ uses the overall reputation of science to give authority to the climate change ‘consensus’, shielding it from questioning and skepticism. ‘I believe in climate science’ is a signifier of social group identity that supports one particular solution: massive government legislation to limit or ban fossil fuels. ‘Belief in climate science’ makes it look as though disagreement on this solution is equivalent to a rejection of the scientific method and worldview. When exposed to science that challenges their political biases, these same ‘believers’ are quick to claim ‘pseudo-science,’ without considering (or even understanding) the actual evidence or arguments. An excellent summary of all this is provided in a previous blog post discussing an article by Robert Tracinski.

In my albeit limited experience, very few politicians have made a serious attempt to understand climate science, beyond being able to parrot talking points provided to them by advocacy groups.

Here is what we are left with: One side attacks science and the other side uses science for political attacks. Neither side actually cares about or understands the science.

Kudos to Amy Coney Barrett for providing an appropriate answer to the climate change questions

Supreme Court

A New York Times article discusses why judge’s ‘opinions’ on climate change are relevant to the Supreme Court. The EPA endangerment finding may be facing a challenge in a future Republican administrations. There are also lawsuits against the U.S. government and oil companies that could make it the Supreme Court.

The Wikipedia has a good overview on the Juliana case against the U.S. government as well as previous cases. Apart from procedural issues, I don’t see what kind of ruling by the Supreme Court on climate change that would hinge on the Justices’ understanding or ruling on details of the science.

The Dutch Urgenda ruling accepted the authority of the IPCC assessment reports. This was an unusual ruling based upon the U.S. court system, which leaves matters of policy to the legislative and executive branches.

Walter Williams: The Fight for Free Speech

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

WW is on target.

Academia is the source of the most dangerous ideas to our freedom and is in the position to do the most damage to our society - by indoctrinating our children.

Here is WW's column.

--------------------------------------

The violence, looting and mayhem that this nation has seen over the last several months has much of its roots in academia, where leftist faculty teach immature young people all manner of nonsense that contradicts commonsense and the principles of liberty. Chief among their lessons is a need to attack free speech in the form of prohibitions against so-called hate speech and microaggressions. Here are examples of microaggressions: “You are a credit to your race.” “Wow! How did you become so good in math?” “There is only one race, the human race.” “I’m not racist. I have several black friends.” “As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority.”

It is a tragic state of affairs when free speech and inquiry require protection at institutions of higher learning. Indeed, freedom in the marketplace of ideas has made the United States, as well as other Western nations, a leader in virtually every area of human endeavor. A monopoly of ideas is just as dangerous as a monopoly in political power or a monopoly in the production of goods and services.

We might ask what is the true test of a person’s commitment to free speech? The true test does not come when he permits people to say those things he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he permits people to say those things that he deems offensive. The identical principle applies to freedom of association; its true test comes when someone permits others to voluntarily associate in ways that he deems offensive.

While free speech has been under attack, we are beginning to see some pushback. More than 12,000 professors, free speech leaders and conservative-leaning organization leaders have signed “The Philadelphia Statement.”

The 845-word document says in part: “Similarly, colleges and universities are imposing speech regulations to make students ‘safe,’ not from physical harm, but from challenges to campus orthodoxy. These policies and regulations assume that we as citizens are unable to think for ourselves and to make independent judgments. Instead of teaching us to engage, they foster conformism (“groupthink”) and train us to respond to intellectual challenges with one or another form of censorship. A society that lacks comity and allows people to be shamed or intimidated into self-censorship of their ideas and considered judgments will not survive for long. As Americans, we desire a flourishing, open marketplace of ideas, knowing that it is the fairest and most effective way to separate falsehood from truth. Accordingly, dissenting and unpopular voices — be they of the left or the right — must be afforded the opportunity to be heard. They have often guided our society toward more just positions, which is why Frederick Douglass said freedom of speech is the ‘great moral renovator of society and government.’”

The recognition of the intellectual elite attacking free speech is not new. In a 1991 speech, Yale University President Benno Schmidt warned: “The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.”

Tyrants everywhere, from the Nazis to the communists, started out supporting free speech rights. Why? Because speech is important for the realization of leftist goals of command and control. People must be propagandized, proselytized and convinced. Once leftists have gained power, as they have in most of our colleges and universities, free speech becomes a liability. It challenges their ideas and agenda and must be suppressed.

Attacks on free speech to accommodate multiculturalism and diversity are really attacks on Western values, which are superior to all others. The indispensable achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, the idea that individuals have certain inalienable rights that are not granted by government. Governments exist to protect these inalienable rights. It took until the 17th century for that idea to arise and mostly through the works of English philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume. And now the 21st century campus leftists are trying to suppress these inalienable rights.

Ginsburg’s Nightmare: The Democratic Plan To Destroy The Supreme Court Of The United States

 Here is a column by Jonathan Turley about the unpatriotic attitude of some toward the Supreme Court.

-------------------------------------

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the call for a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and the packing of the Supreme Court with up to six new members to secure a majority. Both ideas were expressly denounced by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Indeed, to achieve these objectives, the Democratic members will have to tear down the very rule established by Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing.

The refusal of Vice President Joe Biden to answer repeated questions about his position on the packing of the Supreme Court is deeply troubling. This is a proposal raised not by the Republicans but his own running mate Kamala Harris and leading Democrats. It would destroy the Supreme Court and voters should know if Biden would consider such an irresponsible act, particularly when he previously denounced it. The refusal to stand against the proposal is a fundamental failure of leadership. Rather than confront the most extreme elements of his party, Biden has chosen to remain silent on a major issue in this election. Frankly, that is not the Biden that many of us knew from his time in the Senate. He should take a stand against this pernicious idea and defend the institution, as he did in 2019.

Those arguing for proposal are not subtle. University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter declared total license due to the failure to vote on Merrick Garland and now the effort to vote on Amy Coney Barrett: “If they pack the court, the Democrats would be crazy not to do their own court packing.” However, those are vacancies where the Senate used its constitutional power to withhold or hold a vote. I called for a vote on Garland but there was nothing unconstitutional in the withholding of the vote. Indeed, Ginsburg herself insisted that vacancies should be filled even in an election year in 2016. The fact is that, even if the Senate voted and rejected Garland, many of the same voices would still be supporting a court packing scheme. The packing scheme would change the Court for the sole purpose of securing an ideological majority. It would create a new and fundamentally flawed Court — a sad reflection of our age of rage.

When asked about calls to expand the Court, Ginsburg said it would destroy the continuity and cohesion of the Court. She added to NPR last year: “If anything would make the court look partisan, it would be that—one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’” The greatest insult is that these individuals are using Ginsburg’s death to change the Court in the very ways that she opposed in her life.

Here is the column:

Subtlety has been a stranger to our politics. This is the age of rage, and there is little room for nuance. That is evident in the intense debate over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats have dispensed with any pretense in their calls to block her and pack the bench with more justices. What they want is a Supreme Court with litmus test confirmations where Senate votes are conditioned on pledges.

Several Democrats have said they will ask Barrett about her view of any challenge to Roe versus Wade, and cases like the pending challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Indeed, she faced such demands from Richard Blumenthal and others for her confirmation as a federal appellate judge, and several Democrats voted against her since she did not promise to uphold Roe. In their campaigns last year, Kirsten Gillibrand and Bernie Sanders pledged to nominate only those who would uphold Roe.

Hillary Clinton lashed out at Barrett and nominees of President Trump for failing to support particular cases. She has declared, “A number of them would not even say they agreed with Brown versus Board of Education or with other precedents. It is not just a question of choice. It is a question of whether we are going to continue the move toward progress.” Most of the nominees have insisted, as a rule, that it is unethical to comment on cases or issues that might come before them, and that practice is known as the Ginsburg rule, for the very justice who Clinton praised as a model.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed it was wrong to demand assurances on how justices will vote. In her confirmation hearing in 1993, she refused to give the answer that Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Sanders, Clinton, and others now demand from her potential successor. In calling to protect the legacy of Ginsburg, these politicians have to first tear down the Ginsburg rule. They demand that Barrett and other nominees commit to supporting specified cases while pushing them to reverse other cases, such as Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission on campaign finance.

I have criticized the Ginsburg rule, which is used by nominees to refuse giving more than elusive statements on their judicial philosophy. It has reduced critical confirmation hearings to formulaic exercises with silent nominees and bloviating members of the Senate. Nominees must be able to talk about their judicial philosophy and the basis for individual rights, without demands to hear their positions on pending cases.

What politicians are advocating today, however, is a direct litmus test. Not only will they vote against a nominee who opposes a particular case, but they will do so for a nominee who does not expressly support a case. Even if a nominee like Barrett has a foundation in the law, it is how she will vote on certain controversial cases instead of her views that will matter.

Such conditional votes were rejected before the Ginsburg rule. Presidents since Ronald Reagan have pledged not to apply litmus tests. Past sessions of the Senate under the control of both Democrats and Republicans have maintained it is wrong to demand assurances on certain cases and claims. Indeed, many current members of the Senate supported Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in refusing to discuss their views on abortion.

Once these demands are made for cases like Roe, other groups will call for similar litmus tests for cases such as Obergefell versus Hodges, which supports same sex marriage, or cases in favor of environmental or other rights. Conversely, while politicians speak of preserving the precedents, they have pressed nominees to commit to reversing cases like Citizens United. If forced to give such assurances in confirmation hearings, then justices could face later claims of perjury if they changed their minds or voted differently on the Supreme Court. Nominations would become a series of pledges of positions to secure votes in the Senate.

For the scheme to pack the Supreme Court proposed by Kamala Harris and others to work, there must be some kind of litmus test. Democrats have pledged to add new justices to ensure a bench that would vote on cases as desired. Absent such promises, the scheme is a futile exercise. The whole point is to force outcomes such as voting to uphold Roe. This rationale is reaching truly dystopian levels, with the former White House counsel John Dean insisting that, by creating a new ideological majority, Democrats would remove politics from the Supreme Court.

Litmus tests and the idea to pack the bench would not honor Ginsburg. They would instead destroy the Supreme Court she loved. These moves would obliterate an institution that has over history preserved the stability and continuity of our country. The Supreme Court has performed this vital role based on its legitimacy and authority with Americans that will surely evaporate if Democrats conduct litmus tests or pack the bench.

Joe Biden has been asked if he supports these calls to pack the Supreme Court and has refused to answer, despite denouncing such plans in the past. In the debate, when Chris Wallace pressed the issue, Biden declared, “Whatever position I take on that, it will become the issue, and the issue is the people should speak.” Many Americans would not vote for a candidate who considers, let alone supports, a scheme to pack the bench with more justices. Yet Biden refuses to give his position on an important issue raised by his own running mate and other leading Democrats this year.

Ginsburg articulated her rule because she saw litmus tests as unethical pledges. At the time, Democrats like Howell Heflin praised her position. Today, Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court and seek assurances from nominees on cases like Roe, which are two ideas staunchly opposed by Ginsburg. What is left behind is not principle but raw power, and both the Supreme Court and the country will be the worse for it.

John Lott: Why Democrats’ Threat to Abolish the Filibuster Means the End of the United States as we Know It

 John Lott gets it right again.

If the Democrats do what they say they are going to do, we will lose our freedom of action and speech, and our economy will be wrecked.

Those who think that majority rule is a good idea should consider the phrase "the tyranny of the majority".  Where Government is concerned, supermajority rule is much better than majority rule.

Here is JL's column.

-----------------------------------

For months, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Senate Democrats have talked about eliminating the filibuster. And with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the discussion by the Democrats has become even more extreme, with some Senators saying that they must get rid of the filibuster so that they can pack the Supreme Court. Even if not used to pack the Supreme Court, eliminating the filibuster would radically transform the Senate and our country.

Surprisingly, during the first presidential debate on Tuesday night, Biden refused to answer the question about the filibuster: “are you willing to tell the American people whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?” Instead of answering the question, Biden started talking about the need for people to vote.

Those who dislike Donald Trump may think it’s OK to let the Democrats run things for four years. “Never Trumpers” might be fearful of the leftward lurch of the Democratic Party but believe they could always fix things four years later -- that these are just the same scare tactics we hear every four years. But eliminating the filibuster makes this election very different.

Filibusters allow senators to hold the floor for as long as they want, thereby preventing legislation from being passed. The Senate can only end a filibuster with 60 or more votes.

No party has 60 seats in the Senate, so legislation requires some bipartisan support. Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer used to approvingly call the Senate “the cooling saucer for our politics – that can show the nation bipartisanship, compromise and progress.” But if Democrats end the filibuster, simple party-line majorities will be able to pass bills. And if the same party controls both the House and Senate, legislation will be able to zip right through Congress.

If Biden wins, he will likely pull the Senate with him. The election betting odds now estimate that the Democrats will have a 51-to-49 seat majority in the Senate.

The changes Democrats would bring could produce a very different country. Let’s look at their top priorities.

Biden promises on his first day in office to present legislation that would give citizenship to all of the estimated over 22 million undocumented immigrants in the country. The promises of free health insurance and citizenship, not to mention lack of border enforcement, would likely encourage even more illegal immigration into the country.

Democrats’ national platform promises to “stand united against” state voter photo ID requirements and the cleaning up of voter registration rolls. They also propose to make the United States the only country in the world to mandate mail-in balloting.

Democrats promise statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, thereby changing the Senate’s makeup by adding four reliably Democratic seats. They could pass campaign finance laws that make fundraising extremely difficult for challengers. They could even impose a new “fairness doctrine” that would eliminate conservative talk radio.

President Trump’s 200 federal judicial confirmations have only just brought the courts into conservative-liberal balance, with Democratic appointees still controlling circuit courts for 24 states, plus the D.C. circuit court. But Democrats can quickly undo this by passing legislation that expands the number of seats on these lower courts, ensuring massive judicial majorities on every circuit.

Those judicial majorities would ensure that all of the Democrats’ new laws pass constitutional muster. It would also let Democrats control redistricting, to increase their control of the U.S. House and state legislatures.

The Democrats’ platform this year includes gun bans and other regulations such as licensing and registration. This would quickly pass. Free speech would no longer be so free, as “hateful” speech would be criminalized.

The Biden administration would also establish a national commission to recommend what reparations be given to blacks for enduring slavery. And, of course, they will provide federal funding for abortions.

Teachers’ unions will be placated as Biden fulfills his promises to end competition from charter schools and voucher programs such as the DC Opportunity Scholarship program.

But teachers’ unions aren’t the only entities that would be protected from competition. Biden and congressional Democrats have also endorsed California’s new law that bans broad categories workers from being classified as freelancers or independent contractors. Uber, Lyft, and other gig-type businesses are talking about shutting down their operations in the state, and they might find themselves going out of business nationwide.

California and Nevada have already adopted ballot harvesting, which allows organized workers or volunteers to collect absentee ballots from voters and drop them off at a polling place or election office. Democrats may implement similar measures nationwide, further reducing the security of ballots by entrusting the delivery of ballots to partisan campaign employees.

All this and more can happen if Democrats end the filibuster. Democrats have only supported the filibuster in recent years because it prevented Republicans from undoing legislation they liked, such as the Affordable Care Act. Or from passing measures such as school vouchers or national reciprocity for concealed handgun permits.

Democrats now believe they could so fundamentally change the voting rules that they won’t even have to worry about Republicans getting back in power.

If Biden wins and Democrats control the Senate, the country may become unrecognizable.

Biased COVID-19 "Science"

Here is a column by Victor Davis Hanson, "the Unscientific Attack on the Science of Dr. Scott Atlas".

VDH is on target.  Otherwise smart people, e.g., scientists, often succumb to their emotions.

----------------------------------------

The news media until recently had rarely criticized the medical advice of experts — especially those who worked for federal bureaucracies, international organizations or elite universities.

Yet the much-praised Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, has demonstrably weakened the effort to fight COVID-19.

During the critical initial weeks of the virus’s spread, Tedros parroted Chinese propaganda. He falsely assured a complacent world that the virus was likely not transmissible between humans and did not warrant travel bans. That Tedros was the first WHO director not to have a medical degree was seldom cited by the media.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is known to the public for his past advocacy of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act. Although he now advises 77-year-old presidential candidate Joe Biden, Emanuel once wrote an article for The Atlantic titled “Why I hope to die at 75,” contending that that life after age 75 is, and should be, mostly over — now an eerie idea in a time of a pandemic that targets the elderly.

Emanuel has often weighed in on the COVID-19 pandemic, sometimes in overly pessimistic fashion by suggesting that some acquired collective immunity and a viable vaccine were not likely to come soon.

Yet Emanuel also has been largely exempt from media criticism. No reporters have questioned his epidemiological expertise despite his background as an oncologist specializing in breast cancer.

The esteemed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has given conflicting advice on the use of masks, quarantining and the methods of viral transmission. Yet such inconsistency is either ignored or chalked up by the media to the usual learning curve of dealing with a new epidemic.

So why — other than politics — is there now a concerted media attack on Dr. Scott Atlas, an adviser to the Trump administration on COVID-19 policy?

Atlas has had a distinguished career as one of world’s top neuroradiologists. He has become a national expert on public health policy, especially in the cost-benefit analysis of government programs.

After COVID-19 arrived in the U.S., Atlas consistently warned that government must follow science, not politics, in doing the least amount of harm to its people. He has reminded us that those under 65 rarely die from COVID-19, and that those infected who are younger than 20 usually do not show any serious symptoms.

Accordingly, Atlas has urged the states to focus more resources on the most vulnerable — those over 65, who account for the vast majority of COVID-19 deaths — and allow younger Americans to re-enter schools and the workforce with appropriate caution.

Atlas has also warned that the available test data on COVID-19’s infectiousness, spread and morbidity must be handled with care, given that those who feel sick are more likely to get tested. He argues that those with some natural protection from the virus, either through antibodies from an asymptotic past infection or through T-cells, may be a far larger group than previously thought.

But most importantly, Atlas has warned that government must be careful not to endanger Americans with draconian lockdowns that curtail needed medical examinations, procedures and treatments.

Just as dangerous as the disease may be quarantine-related spikes in mental illness, substance abuse, child and spousal abuse, and depression from lost livelihoods. Children may be suffering irreparable harm from being locked down and kept out of school.

Atlas has shown that these policy choices, unfortunately, entail bad options and even worse ones, rather than good choices and even better alternatives. He has not played down the dangers of COVID-19 but rather has reminded us to look at scientific data that often belies media sensationalism.

Many in the media, some of his former colleagues at Stanford Medical School and some other Stanford faculty members have claimed that Atlas — a colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution — has acted unprofessionally. They allege that he has downplayed the lethality of the virus, implying that he is aiding the administration’s efforts to ease out of the quarantine.

Yet few if any of these complainants have cited supporting evidence, either from what Atlas has written or said. Often the accusations turn puerile, suggesting that Atlas can’t be a public health expert because he was originally a neuroradiologist.

In fact, rarely reported is that many members of the Stanford community are honored by its medical school receiving global acclaim for its diversity of expert scientific opinion on the virus.

Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist Michael Levitt of Stanford and several stellar Stanford epidemiologists have been praised worldwide for their careful critiques of often media-generated misconceptions — especially on the overreliance on COVID-19 positive test data to calibrate viral prevalence and morbidly.

How ironic that some critics fault Atlas for not following science, but they do so in a fashion that is completely … well, unscientific.