Supreme Courts are commonly referred to using the name of the chief justice who runs them. In my own lifetime, we've had the Warren Court, the Burger Court, the Rehnquist Court, and now the Roberts Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts. The chief justice is not selected or elected by the other justices, it is a permanent position that only changes after the death or retirement of the previous holder of the title. But it is becoming increasingly obvious (and will continue to become so) that the current court is no longer being led by Roberts. We might as well just adjust to the new reality and start calling it the Alito Court instead.

Continue Reading »

Primary season is about to get underway across the country, and this year all eyes are on the various Republican contests, as seen through a single lens: Donald Trump's endorsements. This is horserace political commentary at its best or worst (depending on your outlook on horserace reporting in general). Tomorrow night will kick off this frenzy, with one of the most-watched races around -- the Senate primary in Ohio. But while much ink will be spilled dissecting the outcome of this race and many others (in the weeks to come), when considering Trump's endorsement record and the relative value of such endorsements, it's important to consider a few factors which might get lost in the fray. So let's take a look at the biggest of these.

How red a state is it?

A Republican primary in a ruby-red state is a different beast than one in a purple state. In a solidly red state, the Republican primary essentially is the election -- whoever wins is going to be elected in November, in other words. In a purple state, there is also the consideration of how strong the candidate will be in the general election against the Democratic nominee.

Continue Reading »

As we write this, everyone inside the Beltway is getting ready for the upcoming White House Correspondents' Dinner, which President Joe Biden has said he will be attending (after a hiatus of presidents attending due to COVID and, earlier, due to Donald Trump having incredibly thin skin). But, as usual, our invitation seems to have been lost in the mail or something. Ahem.

We are excited with a sort of "something good is about to happen" feeling, however, because the House Select January 6th Committee has finally announced a preliminary schedule for public hearings. Here's the story (as it stands so far):

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: This is the conclusion to the first part of this article, which ran yesterday.]

If Republicans do take control of both chambers of Congress, the margin of control in each will be the most important variable. In the Senate, the margin will likely be fairly close, but nobody really knows what it might be like in the House. If Republicans have a blowout House election season and pick up dozens and dozens of seats, this will almost certainly make Kevin McCarthy's job a lot easier; but if the margin is tight (maybe not quite as tight as the one Nancy Pelosi has been dealing with, but perhaps within 10 or 15 votes) then any faction bigger than the margin will be able to dictate its own terms -- as the Tea Partiers proved, the last time this happened.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Kevin McCarthy will actually become speaker. If the margin is tight enough, then the whackadoodle fringe of the Republican caucus might decide to oust him for some perceived unfaithfulness to Trumpism. It's doubtful that they could force one of their own (Jim Jordan, perhaps?) on the rest of their caucus as speaker, but there is a curveball plan that some of them are already openly flirting with -- nominating Donald Trump for speaker of the House.

Continue Reading »

[Program Note: I had to split today's column into two parts, because it ran so long. When I started writing it, I didn't realize how much ground I was going to have to cover. So today's installment will first take a look at the historical context, and then there's a little rundown on some current Republican candidates at the end. Tomorrow's conclusion will examine in depth exactly what might be expected to happen next year. I suppose it's entirely appropriate for an article on divided government to be presented in a divided fashion, right?]

As distasteful as it may be, it seems like a good time to consider what divided government next year would look like, and what might happen in such a scenario. Of course, nobody knows what the outcome of the midterm congressional election will be, and as Ukraine should have taught us, sometimes crises pop up that aren't a part of the American political cycle at all. So we have no idea right now what the most important issue facing the voters will be in November. It could very well be something that isn't even on anyone's radar at the current moment. But just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Republicans win control back of both the House and the Senate. This would give President Joe Biden a hostile Congress for the remaining two years of his first term.

Continue Reading »

President Joe Biden seems to be getting more engaged in the process of the midterm election campaign of late. He has been travelling around the country a lot more (partly this is due to the fluctuating state of the COVID pandemic, of course), he has been making the case for his own record of accomplishments a lot better, and he now seems to be openly considering making a dramatic move that he has actually supported all along: forgiving at least $10,000 of student debt. Notably, this comes only days after Senator Elizabeth Warren publicly urged Biden to start using executive orders to get some things done now, while it could matter for the party's chances in the fall. Maybe Biden got the message.

Of all the things Biden could do with the stroke of a pen, there are two that stand out above all the rest: cancelling student loans and forcing drug companies to lower the prices on their medication. Those two alone would be gigantic leaps forward, at least in the political sense. High drug prices are something everyone hates -- everyone not either on the payroll of or otherwise beholden to Big Pharma. And it consistently winds up near the top of the list in things American voters would like to see the government accomplish, across party lines. While not quite as universal, at least partially forgiving student loans is politically important for one specific reason: the demographic it would help the most.

Continue Reading »

Utah Democrats have just announced they're going to try an experiment. Instead of running a Democratic candidate in the upcoming Senate race, they are instead throwing their weight behind an Independent candidate, Evan McMullin. By doing so, they hope to boost his chances over the incumbent Republican Mike Lee. This is an experiment, so there's no guarantee it'll work -- but it undoubtedly will give McMullin a much better chance at beating Lee, so it will be very interesting to see play out.

America has two dominant political parties with a smattering of much smaller third parties. So when one of the big ones decides to sit out an important race, it is indeed noteworthy. Utah hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate in over half a century though, so it's not like the Democrats had any real viable shot of dethroning Lee. But in a three-way race, they would probably have siphoned off enough votes to make it impossible for any third-party candidate to win.

McMullin ran as an Independent in the 2016 presidential race, mostly to give Republican voters in Utah a more palatable choice than having to vote for Donald Trump. He pulled in an impressive 21.5 percent of the vote in the state, but Trump still won the state with 45.5 percent. Hillary Clinton got 27.5 percent, meaning that 49 percent of the vote went for either the Democrat or McMullin. McMullin was either on the ballot or a write-in candidate in many other states, but other than Idaho (6.7 percent), he failed to top even two percent of the vote anywhere. Obviously, he was a "favorite son" candidate in Utah itself, and nothing more.

Of course, nobody knows how he'll do this time around. But Utah does have a history of electing strong conservatives to the Senate who are still rational (see: Mitt Romney) and have not gone down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. Mike Lee, on the other hand, started as a Tea Partier and has now gone full MAGA. So this will be a race between the Trump wing of the Republican Party and what's left of the old establishment Republicans.

Continue Reading »

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

It's been a rather bizarre week, which is even more odd since Congress is still off lollygagging, rather than doing the people's business as they are handsomely paid to do. Perhaps all these vacations have a cost? That's what we were thinking, at any rate, when we heard the news today that the House Select Committee on January 6th has punted the ball yet again, and will not even be scheduling public hearings until June, rather than next month. Seriously, guys? You're going to break the biggest political scandal story of the year right at the start of summer?!?

Continue Reading »

Today, I am going to serve mostly as a stenographer. Because all Democrats should really take five minutes and watch one of the most amazing political statements I've seen in a very long time. The key to the effectiveness of this speech is the righteous indignation of the woman speaking. It is heartfelt, absolutely authentic, and a study in barely-controlled rage. Which is exactly what a whole bunch of other Democrats should be expressing right now.

The woman speaking is Mallory McMorrow, a state senator in Michigan. She delivered this speech on the floor of her legislative chamber. As she makes immediately apparent, the speech is a reaction to another senator using the vile and disgusting smears that the Republican Party has gleefully latched onto to demonize their opponents, while they attempt to remove all discussions of any adult relationship that they do not approve of from all public schools.

Republicans have latched onto two words: "grooming" and "pedophilia." This dovetails nicely with all the QAnon lunacy, and also continues a smear that was effectively used against gays in the 1970s and 1980s (and even beyond) -- that they were all constantly "recruiting" children to gayness. One state senator in Michigan obviously used this language against McMorrow, and she took righteous offense. As well she should have.

So today, no further commentary is really needed. I invite everyone to watch the video or just read the following transcript. I took the time to write it all out because I couldn't find a full transcript of the speech anywhere else and felt it was worth writing down. One technical note: all emphasis (italics) was added by me, but I was in fact rather restrained in doing so. If you listen to the video, there are a whole lot of other phrases I could have justifiably italicized. That's the beauty of the speech, in fact -- the righteous indignation in McMorrow's voice as she speaks.

-- Chris Weigant

[Video taken from Michigan Senator Mallory McMorrow's tweet, which appears with the following introductory text:

Senator Lana Theis accused me by name of grooming and sexualizing children in an attempt to marginalize me for standing up against her marginalizing the LGBTQ community... in a fundraising email, for herself.

Hate wins when people like me stand by and let it happen. I won't.]

Thank you, Mister President.

I didn't expect to wake up yesterday to the news that the senator from the twenty-second district had, overnight, accused me -- by name -- of grooming and sexualizing children, in an email fundraising for herself.

So I sat on it for a while wondering: "Why me?" And then I realized: because I am the biggest threat to your hollow, hateful scheme. Because you can't claim that you are targeting marginalized kids in the name of, quote, parental rights if another parent is standing up to say: "No!"

Continue Reading »

Donald Trump has taught the Republican Party many things that have directly conflicted with long-standing party orthodoxy, so it shouldn't really come as that big a surprise that Republicans are now embracing using the power of government to punish corporate behavior they don't approve of. This is the party formerly known as the champion of the free market, mind you. The party that fought hard for corporations to be considered citizens with full constitutional rights, including the right of "free speech." All of those ideals have been conveniently tossed on the ideological scrap heap, though, as Republicans now fully embrace using the full power of government to punish corporations for speaking out on politics.

This isn't just "picking winners and losers" in the marketplace, either -- a concept Republicans also (theoretically) used to be against. It is more about causing fear in corporate boardrooms that they could be next if their corporation does something the most extreme right-wing politicians do not approve of. Such as speaking out against an unpopular law.

Continue Reading »