Democrats Packing The Court Cartoons

 

Hunter Biden, the Wall Street Journal and the decline of media gatekeepers

The thing about “fake news” is that it suddenly seems authentic when it’s on your side.

For all of President Trump’s attacks on the “enemy of the people”--and some criticism from the Bernie Sanders wing that derides the corporate-controlled media--nonpartisan journalists can still be useful in the role of umpire. And that’s why the president, and politicians of all stripes, try to orchestrate favorable coverage, especially on controversial issues.

This enables them to point to a news story as validation of whatever political charge they’re hurling at the moment. Such stories give their rhetoric a certain gravitas, a patina of credibility.

But--and here’s the rub--nowhere near as much as in the past. A huge swath of the country no longer trusts the elite media, which has been battered by Trumpian attacks as well as their own increasingly blatant biases and blunders. Many people no longer believe the fact-checkers will deliver the facts. Many reflexively dismiss a story in the New York Times or Washington Post, no matter how well-documented, as trash because of the perception of political animus. 

They were once the gatekeepers, the big papers, networks and magazines who mainly controlled what you read, saw and heard. But the rise of the web and social media destroyed their stranglehold on the news. And that, despite the vitriol and misinformation that are part of the Twitter and Facebook culture, was a healthy thing.

The downside of their forced abdication is the absence of neutral referees, the inability to agree on a common set of facts, that has been a hallmark of the Trump era, as major news outlets have turned sharply left. Who, in the past, could imagine a president walking out on “60 Minutes”?

And that brings us to Hunter Biden.

Ben Smith, in his New York Times column, describes how Trump campaign operatives tried to give the story--the batch of emails and a former Hunter business partner accusing Joe Biden of involvement--to a Wall Street Journal reporter. “The Trump team left believing that The Journal would blow the thing open and their excitement was conveyed to the president,” who told one crowd the Journal was working on an exciting story.

But when Journal reporters--who operate separately from its conservative editorial page--took too long with their digging, the Trump folks, who wanted the story out before the final debate, got antsy. Rudy Giuliani delivered some of the same documents to the New York Post, which like the Journal and Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch but operates independently. The Post’s story, alleging the former vice president was involved in Hunter’s foreign dealmaking, drew plenty of criticism (and was censored by Twitter and Facebook, which have essentially become the new virtual gatekeepers).

The ex-business partner, Tony Bobulinski, issued a statement implicating Biden the night before the debate, and the Trump campaign brought him to Nashville for an appearance the next day. Breitbart, which used to be run by Steve Bannon, the ex-White House aide who was working with Giuliani, published the entire statement.  

The result is the latest Hunter stories were birthed in a hyperpartisan storm, rather than with the imprimatur of the Journal news pages.

Worse, from the Trump campaign’s point of view, is that the Journal ran a short news story saying “corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” Fox’s news division, reviewing the same records, reached the same conclusion. At both outlets, conservative opinion people disagreed.

There was a barrage of online denunciations from Trump supporters after I laid out these facts on “Media Buzz.”

On one side, you have Bobulinski’s account and an email saying that “H” (presumably Hunter) would reserve 10 percent of the millions of dollars from China for the “big man” (presumably Joe).

On the other side, another ex-partner says Joe Biden was not involved, while two news organizations failed to find evidence to contradict that. And in any event this happened in 2017, when Biden was out of office, and the China project never went anywhere.

Conservative partisans don’t want to hear this; they’re convinced the former VP is guilty as hell. Liberal partisans don’t want to hear this; they think the media shouldn’t even touch the subject. That includes NPR, whose managing editor said last week that “we don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories.”

Of course it’s a story, with many unanswered questions. Overall, Hunter Biden’s foreign influence-peddling looks awful and is an embarrassment to his father. But we already knew that.

Smith writes that the last two weeks have proved “that the old gatekeepers, like the Journal, can still control the agenda.”

I wouldn’t use the word control. A blue-chip newspaper like the Journal carries more weight than a highly partisan website, but it’s a vast echo chamber out there, and no news organization has the clout to either certify or shut down an allegation that’s “out there.” There are too many ways for a shaky charge, a video snippet or a conspiracy theory to go viral, too many audiences that believe the establishment press is lying to them.

That’s why the gatekeepers are a shadow of their former selves, just some brand-name voices in the national cacophony.

 

Democrats say Republicans will regret Barrett confirmation, slam 'manipulation' of Supreme Court

Shortly after Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the  U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, Democrats warned Republicans that they would regret their decision to hold a vote so closely to an election.

"The Republican majority is lighting its credibility on fire ... The next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech Monday.

"My colleagues may regret this for a lot longer than they think," he added. 

Nominees once needed 60 votes to be confirmed, but Sen. Mitch McConnell changed the standard in 2017 to allow for a simple majority. That move allowed for the confirmation of President Trump's previous two nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. 

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., first eliminated the 60-vote threshold in 2013 to overcome GOP stonewalling of President Obama's nominations to the lower courts and the executive branch. Known as invoking the "nuclear option" at the time, Reid kept the higher standard in place for the Supreme Court. 

The comments by Schumer appeared to be similar to those made by McConnell back in 2013 after the Democratic-controlled chamber eliminated the 60-vote threshold. 

“You’ll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” McConnell said in 2013, according to the Hill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also released a statement criticizing Trump and the GOP Senate for "committed an act of supreme desperation" so close to Election Day. 

Pelosi argued the confirmation, which she called a manipulation, was made so Trump and Republicans could "achieve their years-long campaign to destroy Americans’ health care"

“The President’s Supreme Court manipulation threatens the very values and rights that define and distinguish our nation: a woman’s constitutional right to make her own medical decisions, the rights of LGBTQ Americans, the right of workers to organize and collectively bargain for fair wages, the future of our planet and environmental protections, voting rights and the right of every American to have a voice in our democracy," Pelosi wrote in a statement.

Democratic senators warned that Republicans have lost the right to complain if they win back the majority.

"Will Democrats go to new, extraordinary lengths to maximize their power given the extraordinary lengths Republicans have gone to maximize their power? This is not a conversation that is ripe enough yet, but what do Republicans expect?" said Sen. Chris Murphy D-Conn., as part of the chamber’s debate over Barrett.

"Do we just unilaterally stand down and not choose to use the same tools that Republicans did in the majority? ... I think there are now new rules in the Senate, and I think Republicans have set them," he continued, according to the paper.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., released a statement calling the confirmation a "sad day for the Senate and for the Court."

"My Republican colleagues put the rule of ‘because we can’ over the traditions and precedents of the Senate, the principles we hold dear as an institution, and the integrity of the federal judiciary," he said.

The Supreme Court said in a press release Monday that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.

Fox News' Ronn Blitzer and Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report

 

Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to Supreme Court, 'Squad' members call for expanding the bench

Members of the progressive "Squad" of House Democrats didn't skip a beat on Monday, calling for court-packing almost immediately after Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

"Expand the court," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a terse response.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., followed: "Expand the court."

Monday's vote came after weeks of partisan bickering over the rationale for confirming justices before an election.

"We are going to take back the White House [and] Senate next week with a resounding mandate from the people to fight back against Trump’s illegitimately stacked judiciary," Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted after Barrett's confirmation. "We must expand the Court if we’re serious about the transformational change the people are crying out for."

After Senate Democrats previously indicated they would take extraordinary measures in response to a Barrett confirmation, former Vice President Joe Biden declined to say whether he would pack the courts.

Another "Squad" member, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., tweeted a photo of herself, with the words: "We reject this injustice. We will fight for our rights. We will legislate our values."

Just before the Senate's vote on Monday, Biden floated the possibility that he could move justices to other courts. 

“There is some literature among constitutional scholars about the possibility of going from one court to another court, not just always staying the whole time in the Supreme Court but I have made no judgement," Biden said at a campaign stop in Chester, Pa.

He went on to say that "there are just a group of serious constitutional scholars, have a number of ideas how we should proceed from this point on."

Biden's predecessor, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, urged followers to vote Republicans out of office. 

"Senate Republicans just pushed through a Supreme Court justice who will help them take away Americans' health care in the middle of a pandemic. For them, this is victory. Vote them out," she said.

 

Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice at White House

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, fresh off her confirmation to serve as an associate justice on the nation's highest court, took her constitutional oath on Monday at the White House.

The Supreme Court said in a press release that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday's ceremony.

Thomas has long been considered one of the more conservative justices on the court, along with Barrett's mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Echoing her mentor, Barrett underscored the need for a separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

"It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences," Barrett said to an audience on the South Lawn of the White House. "In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don't stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people."

The separation of duty is what makes the judiciary distinct, she said.

"A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her," she said.

The Senate confirmed Barrett with a 52-48 vote. All 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats opposed her confirmation.

Controversial from the start, her confirmation prompted a wave of backlash on Monday. Almost immediately after the Senate voted, Democratic lawmakers panned the decision while some called demanded leaders "expand the court."

Barrett's confirmation solidified a conservative majority on the nation's highest court, and gave Trump another victory as he headed into election day.

Whoever wins on Nov. 3 will likely have major consequences on the Supreme Court as an American institution. Former Vice President Joe Biden has mostly refused to answer questions about whether he would pack the courts.

On Monday, Biden said that he might be open to shifting Supreme Court justices to lower courts if elected president, noting that he hadn't made any judgment yet on the issue.

“There is some literature among constitutional scholars about the possibility of going from one court to another court, not just always staying the whole time in the Supreme Court but I have made no judgment," Biden said at a campaign stop in Chester, Pa.

He went on to say that "there are just a group of serious constitutional scholars, have a number of ideas how we should proceed from this point on."

"That's what we're going to be doing. We're going to give them 180 days God-willing if I'm elected, from the time I'm sworn in to be able to make such a recommendation."

During an interview with "60 Minutes," Biden said he would set up a commission that would make recommendations for reforming the court system. 

"I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it's getting out of whack," he said.

Fox News' Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

 

Biden Fracking Cartoons

 

Polls show President Trump won debate against Biden

 

Following Thursday’s final presidential debate, President Trump shared multiple polls on Twitter that showed as much as 96 percent of participants claimed he won.

Experts have said the President’s performance was measured, controlled and on message. In the meantime, analysts noted Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden often struggled to present coherent ideas and made several gaffes throughout the 96 minute event.

Election experts have predicted President Trump’s performance could have even been good enough to win over undecided voters.

The two candidates went head-to-head in Nashville, Tenn. and debated on a number of issues currently pressing the American people. The President opened up the debate and touted his administration’s response to the coronavirus. He highlighted the great strides American companies have made to bring a swift end to the pandemic.

“We have a vaccine that’s coming, it’s ready, it’s going to be announced within weeks and it’s going to be delivered,” said President Trump. “We have Operation Warp Speed.”

When he spoke about healthcare, Biden said he would replace the ‘Affordable Care Act’ with his own personal plan and argued his policy would drive insurance competition. President Trump pushed back against his opponent’s idea and noted his healthcare plan is a political ploy to attempt to bring socialism to the U.S.

“When he talks about a public option he’s talking about destroying medicare… and destroying your social security,” the President noted. “And this whole country will come down.” Additionally, President Trump slammed Biden for being a puppet for “the left” and warned voters that his opponent wants to close up the country. The President added that this threatens to destroy the national economy.

“We can’t lock ourselves up in a basement like Joe does,” said the President. “We can’t close up our nation…or you’re not going to have a nation.”

Throughout the debate, President Trump hammered down on the Biden family and accused his opponent of accepting bribes from foreign entities. He stated that the Democrat owes an explanation to the American people in regard to the Hunter Biden email scandal.

The President wrapped up by reminding voters that he originally ran for president back in 2016 in order to fix “America from the control of the radical left.”

“You know, Joe, I ran because of you,” the President stated. “Because you did a poor job. If I thought you did a good job, I would have never run.”

Susan Collins says she is voting against Coney Barrett confirmation to be 'fair and consistent'

 Republican??

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, took a veiled shot at her party’s leadership in the Senate on Sunday when she announced that she would be voting against the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

“Prior to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, I stated that, should a vacancy on the Supreme Court arise, the Senate should follow the precedent set four years ago and not vote on a nominee prior to the presidential election.,” Collins said in a statement.

She added: “Because this vote is occurring prior to the election, I will vote against the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.”

Collins noted in her statement that her vote against confirming Coney Barrett to the nation’s highest court is not meant as a slight against the jurist but instead is a matter of “being fair and consistent.”

The Maine Republican’s statement appears to directly hit at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stance to move forward with confirming Coney Barrett with just over a week to go before the presidential election. McConnell has drawn widespread criticism from Democrats and been labelled a hypocrite based on the treatment of former President Barack Obamas Supreme Court nominee and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals chief Judge Merrick Garland.

Obama nominated Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away in February 2016, but McConnell and Senate Republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, citing the imminent 2016 presidential election.

McConnell has said his stance was not hypocritical -- because in 2020, Republicans would control both the White House and the Senate, unlike Democrats in 2016, who controlled only the White House.

"You have to go back to 1880s to find the last time a Senate controlled by a party different from the president filled a vacancy on the Supreme Court that was created in the middle of a presidential election year," McConnell previously told Fox News.

Collins in her statement, however, appears to be agreeing with McConnell’s detractors.

“When the Senate considers nominees to the United States Supreme Court, it is particularly important that we act fairly and consistently, using the same set of rules, no matter which political party is in power,” she said. “What I have concentrated on is being fair and consistent, and I do not think it is fair nor consistent to have a Senate confirmation vote prior to the election.”

Despite Collins statement, Republicans will have enough votes to confirm Coney Barrett to the bench when they meet Monday evening to decide.

Another Republican who was one the fence, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, announced her support for Coney Barrett Saturday during a floor speech in the Senate.

Murkowski said she's still opposed to the Senate taking up a Supreme Court nominee so close to Nov. 3 election, but the senator said she already lost that procedural fight and she must evaluate Barrett's qualifications to the bench. 

"I will be a yes," Murkowski said Saturday in a floor speech. "I have no doubt about her intellect. I have no doubt about Judge Barrett's judicial temperament. I have no doubt about her capability to do the job -- and to do it well."

Fox News’ Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.