russian investigation cartoons (again)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: the Supreme Court's outspoken justice

Asleep at the Wheel :-)

Photo taken in California October 26, 2010

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is more than just a member of the Supreme Court -- she’s become a liberal icon and, even more improbably, a celebrity.

Her likeness appears on T-shirts. A book about her, “Notorious RBG,” is a big seller. Kate McKinnon does an impression of her on “Saturday Night Live” (“You’ve been Ginsburned!”).

In January, Ginsburg appeared before an adoring crowd at the Sundance Film Festival premiere of “RBG,” a documentary about her life. The movie went over big, and should soon be appearing at a theater near you.
Part of this rise may be attributable, ironically, to the man who presently sits in the White House. As one of the Supreme Court’s most stalwart liberals, Ginsburg, in recent years, has been defined to a certain extent by her opposition to Donald Trump.
Most justices stay out of political battles, but not Ginsburg. In the midst of the presidential race in 2016, she told “The New York Times” “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what this country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
She wasn’t done. She later added, “He’s a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego....How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” For someone whose job is following precedent, this sort of talk was almost unprecedented.
Trump responded in kind, tweeting: “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot — resign!”
Many felt she’d crossed a line, and she expressed regret for her criticism. (Later that year she criticized Colin Kaepernick for refusing to stand for the national anthem, and ended up apologizing for that, as well.)
Trump, probably to the surprise of Ginsburg, was elected. And Ginsburg, to the surprise of no one, did not resign as Trump had demanded. She also did not stop talking politics.
Earlier this year, she spoke of her fear that the federal judiciary, in Washington’s partisan climate, would be seen as just another political branch. But not too long after, she showed she was still willing to wade into political battles herself, repeating charges she’d made in 2017 that sexism was a major factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss, noting the candidate had a tough time getting by “the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign.”
And if that wasn’t enough to keep her name out there, she also made a stir with her #MeToo story of sexual harassment from a teaching assistant when she was a student in a Cornell chemistry class.
When all is said and done, though, what matters most are not the things she says to the media, but the official opinions she expresses as one of the nine most powerful judges in the land.
At 84, she’s the oldest member of the Court, and though she’s had health issues — twice she’s undergone cancer surgery — she has no plans to retire. (Some on the left had hoped she’d leave the court while a Democrat was in the White House, but that wish has been put on hold.) In fact, Ginsburg’s health regimen is well known — there’s a book out by her personal trainer Bryant Johnson, “The RBG Workout.”
Unlike her colleague and second-oldest justice, Anthony Kennedy — the court’s most important swing vote -- Ginsburg’s jurisprudence tends to be less in doubt on controversial cases. Certainly many of her beliefs were clear before she was nominated by President Clinton, as she had worked for the ACLU and specialized in gender discrimination.
Nevertheless, court watchers pay close attention to Ginsburg. Sitting on a court that leans conservative, many see her as the best at making the liberal argument in high profile cases.
Among her most famous opinions are “United States v. Virginia” (1996), striking down the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only policy; “Ring v. Arizona” (2002), limiting the circumstances where a defendant can receive the death penalty; and “Eldred v. Ashcroft” (2003), stating that extending copyright protection doesn’t violate the First Amendment or the Constitution’s Copyright Clause.
But it’s her dissents where many think she’s most compelling.
In “Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.” (2007), Ginsburg wrote for the minority in a 5-4 case about the proper deadline for filing a claim of sexual discrimination.
Apparently troubled, even offended, by the decision from the Court’s conservatives, she took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench. Ginsburg argued that the Court had a “cramped interpretation” of the “broad remedial purpose” of civil rights law. Her argument, in a way, won out when, in 2009, Congress passed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, effectively overturning the majority’s decision.
She also dissented in “Gonzalez v. Carhart” (2007), a case that upheld, 5-4, a partial-birth abortion ban.
Ginsburg would have none of it, writing “Today’s decision is alarming...for the first time since ‘Roe,’ the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.” She didn’t hold back: “In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”
Then there’s her dissent in yet another 5-4 case, “Burwell v. Hobby Lobby” (2014), where the Court struck down, for certain companies, the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
She wrote “mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.” She claims the Court, in looking at relevant law and precedent, “falters at each step of its analysis.” She also states “The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield” in trying to determine which religious objections to laws are worthy.
In the upcoming months, there will be decisions on a number of potentially game-changing cases — issues regarding the First Amendment, states’ right, labor law and gerrymandering, for example. It’s possible Justice Ginsburg will write some of these opinions.
It’s even more likely, many believe, she’ll be writing more dissents. If that happens, expect fireworks.

Be like Michael Jordan? Not at Air Force Academy

Back in the 1990s, it seemed that almost everyone wanted to be like Michael Jordan.

But apparently those days are over.

This week the U.S. Air Force Academy issued an apology after a commandant cited the former pro basketball star as an exemplar of good grooming and professional appearance.
“He was never seen with a gaudy chain around his neck, his pants below his waistline, or with a backwards baseball hat on during public appearances,” Master Sgt. Zachary Parish wrote in an email to cadets, according to the Gazette in Colorado Springs.

"He was never seen with a gaudy chain around his neck, his pants below his waistline, or with a backwards baseball hat on during public appearances.”

- Air Force Academy Master Sgt. Zachary Parish, in an email to cadets

Parish is the top enlisted airman assigned to the student body, called the cadet wing. Across the military, top enlisted personnel enforce haircut regulations for lower-ranking personnel.
But some recipients of Parish’s email took offense, interpreting his message not as well-intentioned advice, but as a slight against African-Americans, the newspaper reported.
An academy colonel quickly attempted corrective action.
“Let me apologize for the email sent earlier today by our first sergeant,” Col. Julian Stevens wrote, according to the newspaper. "The comments were very disrespectful, derogatory and in no way reflective of (cadet wing) permanent party views.
“Microagressions such as these are often blindspots/unintentional biases that are not often recognized, and if they are recognized they are not always addressed,” Stevens added.
But even the colonel’s message drew criticism, as some Air Force sergeants writing on Facebook accused the officer of being overly sensitive.
“This is a perfect example of why we're going to lose a war with Russia/China,” one commenter wrote, according to the Gazette.

Ted Cruz accuses CNN of sitting on interview after Chris Cuomo said he's ‘afraid’ to appear on network

Ted Cruz spoke with CNN amid staffers accusing him of being afraid to appear on the network.

Ted Cruz wants CNN to know he's no coward.

The Texas senator on Friday blasted the liberal news network for sitting on an interview he gave it even as “New Day” host Chris Cuomo was accusing him of being “afraid” to appear on the network.

CNN even displayed an on-screen graphic on Thursday morning criticizing Cruz, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio for appearing on Fox News but not CNN with the headline.
“What are they afraid of?” Cuomo, said. "They're all on Fox, the mothership, because they don't want to be asked about [gun control]."
Cruz initially took to Twitter to explain that he has conducted three separate town hall events on CNN in recent months, an indication he isn't afraid of the network. Friday, Cuomo was still tweeting about Cruz, so the Republican lawmaker fired back – claiming CNN never aired an interview that he gave on Thursday afternoon.
“That's funny,” Cruz tweeted. “I spoke to CNN for 15 mins yesterday about proactive solutions to prevent gun violence (like passing the Grassley-Cruz bill—which Dems filibustered—that would add $300 million for school safety) yet CNN has aired NONE of it. Why not air the (entire) interview?”
Cruz even tweeted a picture of a CNN reporter holding a microphone to his face for what he said was a 15-minute exclusive.
CNN is now scheduled to air the interview on Friday afternoon during “The Situation Room” after facing pressure from various media outlets, according to a network source. It is unclear if the interview will air in its entirety.
“Be clear: Cruz and others were invited to come on @NewDay and be tested about how to stop these shootings. They declined. If Cruz or others did an intv [sic] with CNN thereafter fine, but they didn’t when we asked. Period. Offer stands. Anytime. Anywhere,” Cuomo tweeted in response.
The latest embarrassment for CNN began on Thursday when Catherine Frazier, a senior communications adviser to Cruz, tweeted that CNN was making “stupid, pointless accusations."
Meanwhile, critics of CNN were quick to defend Cruz via Twitter when Cuomo initially said he was “afraid” to appear on the network – many pointing to his combative interviews with Republican lawmakers and White House surrogates.
The anti-Trump Cuomo recently told a critic to “get woke” while denouncing the border wall during a lengthy storm of left-leaning tweets. Last year, Cuomo referred to a Trump-supporting viewer as a “lemming” during a nasty Twitter exchange.
Cuomo, 47, who came to CNN from reliably liberal ABC News, is known for his frenetic interviewing style and unusual questions on CNN’s troubled morning program. Cuomo’s older brother Andrew, the Democratic governor of New York, is known to harbor presidential aspirations.

Pelosi’s Doomsday Scenario: Dem leader could face rebellion if House takeover fails

House Democrats see a big opportunity this year to seize control of the chamber after years in the wilderness, but the favorable landscape has emerged as a double-edged sword for Nancy Pelosi – putting high expectations on the House minority leader to deliver or face a resurgent effort to unseat her.

The California Democrat has held onto her leadership post for roughly a dozen years, brushing aside past challenges and touting her political acumen all along, despite her party being relegated to the minority since the 2010 midterms.

This year, Pelosi may face a do-or-die scenario.
And there are no guarantees. While President Trump is thought to be a drag for Republicans in purple districts, GOP strategists see Pelosi as an albatross for Democrats, hammering her most recently for describing tax cut-tied bonuses as "crumbs." And a fresh poll shows Republicans erasing the Democrats' edge in the so-called "generic" ballot, which asks voters which party they'd support for Congress.
If Democrats do fall short in November, a contest to replace Pelosi as the chamber’s top Democrat already has been handicapped as a two-person battle – between Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer, the chamber’s No.  2 Democrat, and New York Rep. Joe Crowley, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
“This is very political. Nobody wants to kill the queen. Joe’s just going about his work, but he’s on everybody’s short-list,” a Democratic strategist, who asked to speak anonymously for this story, told Fox News.
Other names could emerge in such a post-midterm melee.

Rep. Joe Crowley is seen as a potential candidate for House Democratic leader, if Pelosi is challenged.  (AP)

Beyond Hoyer and Crowley, Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton, of Massachusetts; Kathleen Rice, of New York; and Linda Sanchez, of California, have all been mentioned as possible Pelosi challengers, in large part because they have publicly stated their desire for a change in leadership.
Moulton, a two-term congressman and Harvard-educated Iraq War veteran, has been openly critical of House leaders since at least 2016, when Pelosi couldn’t make good on predictions that Democrats, relying heavily on the anti-Trump message, would retake the House.
As a result, Pelosi, 77, faced a challenge for her post from Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan. Pelosi won two-thirds of the caucus vote, as she accurately predicted. But 63 of the 134 House members voted against her.
In 2012, after failing to significantly cut into the GOP’s majority, Pelosi shot down a reporter’s question about whether the decision by her and others in House leadership to remain in their posts is delaying the rise of younger members. She responded by highlighting her efforts to get younger Democrats elected to Congress and concluded, “The answer is no.”
Ryan -- who argued in 2016 that the Democratic Party, including its elite California and New York leaders, has failed to connect with Middle America voters -- has since made clear he has no desire to mount another challenge. His office did not return a request for comment for this story.
The 39-year-old Moulton, even this week, continued to argue for a “next generation” of leaders. And many House Democrats consider him, not Hoyer, the “bridge” to such a new group, a House Democratic source said.
Moulton press secretary Matt Corridoni told Fox News on Tuesday that the congressman is “not interested in seeking a leadership post.”
Hoyer also has suggested that he could be the bridge to the next generation. But at 78, and as a longtime member of Pelosi’s team, such an argument is difficult to make, several Democrats said this week.
The chairman of the House Democratic Caucus is considered the No. 4 post on Pelosi’s leadership team. But Crowley maintains a high profile in Washington and in congressional districts across the country, having recently visited states like New Hampshire and Michigan and often taking charge of House Democratic leadership’s weekly Capitol Hill press conferences.
He also has contributed at least $2.6 million to candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, from his own committees or from money raised from donors, his office recently told The Washington Post.
While solid numbers, they cannot match Pelosi’s, who is known as a prolific fundraiser. Last year, Pelosi reportedly raised $49.5 million for House Democrats, including $47.6 million for the DCCC.
“She can raise in Hollywood and Silicon Valley like nobody’s business,” the Democratic strategist also said. “Crowley hasn’t matched that, but he does well.”
Crowley's office declined to comment for this report. Hoyer press secretary Mariel Saez said in an email: “Mr. Hoyer – and the entire Democratic Caucus – are focused on taking back the House in November. He will continue working hard in the coming months to ensure we have a Democratic Majority in 2019.”
A Pelosi spokesman brushed off the post-midterm speculation.
“The leader is focused on winning back the House,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told Fox News on Wednesday. “She’s not here to work a shift. She’s on a mission. There will always be people [on Capitol Hill] with ambition. That’s part of the game. But the leader is singularly focused on winning back the House and has the widespread support of the caucus.”
To be sure, Democrats have a good chance this year to win a total of two-dozen seats and take the House.
The party that controls the White House historically loses about 30 seats in the first midterms after the presidential election. In addition, Trump’s relatively low approval rating will be a strain on GOP candidates in moderate districts; more than 30 House Republicans this cycle are not seeking reelection; and recent federal election records show 55 Democratic candidates so far have raised more money this cycle than the Republican incumbents they are challenging.
But while Democrats hold the edge in many races, polling in recent weeks has shown their advantage on the generic ballot narrowing, even before this week's Politico/Morning Consult poll.
Beyond concerns about Pelosi’s tenure hurting her party’s ability to keep the party vibrant with newer members, whose ideas and leadership would presumably attract younger voters, the Democratic Party also must contend with her status as a San Francisco liberal alienating moderate voters and a lightning rod for Republicans during election seasons.
"The fact that Nancy Pelosi is the face and leader of the Democratic Party is the gift that keeps on giving for the NRCC," Matt Gorman, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman, said last week. "As her colleagues openly grumble that she's a liability for 2018 and she continues to be the most unpopular politician in the country, I can only say one thing: go, Nancy, go."