RSN: FOCUS: Trump's Judges Are a Giant Step Backward for America

28 April 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

URGENT AND IMMEDIATE APPEAL FOR DONATIONS - It is - very - important to get moving on donations, right here right now. Yes we do need the money. Yes some people have helped. But we have to have a good month, whatever it takes. As of right now it’s not happening. With urgency. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

FOCUS: Trump's Judges Are a Giant Step Backward for America

Shira A. Scheindlin, Guardian UK
Scheindlin writes: "Whether or not he is re-elected, Donald Trump will be revered by conservatives for his judicial appointments. As of March, Trump has appointed 193 judges to the federal bench, with another 39 pending on the floor of the Senate or in the Senate judiciary committee."

After three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term

 Those nominations will surely be acted on favorably by the Senate before 20 January 2021, when there may be a new president and a new Senate. There are another 38 district court vacancies awaiting nominations. In one presidential term, Trump may appoint up to 270 federal judges, or 31% of the entire federal judiciary. For perspective, Barack Obama appointed 329 in eight years.

There is no doubt that the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, will confirm Trump’s appointments until the very last day of his term. This is of course the same Senate gatekeeper who infamously blocked Obama’s final supreme court nomination, Merrick Garland, for an entire year – on the ground that in the final year of a presidency, the Senate should await “the will of the people” in the upcoming general election. But that was then. The rules have apparently changed. McConnell will pack the courts with “right-thinking” ideologues who will carry out Trump’s agenda long after he has been subjected to the scorn of historical scrutiny.

We now know a lot about Trump’s judicial appointments. Eighty-five per cent are white and 76% are male. This is a significant step backward. Obama’s judicial appointments were 64% white and 58% male. Today, after more than three years of Trump’s appointments, the federal judiciary is 73% white and 66% male, but it will be even more male and pale by the end of his term. Even more troubling is the average age of the Trump judges. According to Brookings, the median age of Trump’s judicial appointments by the beginning of his fourth year in office is 48.2. By the same time in his presidency, the median age of Obama’s appointees was 57.2. This means that Trump judges will serve, on average, for 10 years more than the Obama judges.

Statistics only tell part of the story. More important is the impact of these statistics on the critical issues that face the courts now and in the future. Courts should reflect the people they serve. I served as a federal district judge for 22 years. The vast majority of criminal defendants (in non-white-collar cases) were either African American or Hispanic, as were their family members. Plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases were overwhelmingly women, minorities or persons with disabilities. The same was true in actions involving prisoner rights, voting rights, housing discrimination and public benefits. Not all cases involve big corporations and business disputes.

A diverse bench engenders trust and credibility. Many studies have shown that decision-makers reach better decisions when they bring a variety of experiences to their analysis. A 36-year-old lawyer who has never tried a case, has not represented individual clients, and has not spent years facing life’s challenges is not well-positioned to decide on the length of a prison term, the need for access to healthcare, abortion, food stamps, Medicare or housing, or the impact of pollution or discrimination on working people’s quality of life. It is for this reason the American Bar Association’s standing committee on the federal judiciary insists that a candidate for judicial office have at least 12 years of experience practicing law – not talking about it as a speech writer, lobbyist or media star.

When I was appointed to the bench I was 48. I had been a federal prosecutor, a defense lawyer, and had handled many civil cases in trial and appellate courts. That experience was invaluable. I knew both the substance and procedure of federal practice. The same cannot be said of many of Trump’s nominees, whose only qualifications appear to be their consistently rightwing voting records.

Consider the following four Trump judges, all of whom were appointed in their 30s. What they have in common is not their legal experience, but their outspoken support of Trump’s political agenda. All were members of the Federalist Society or other rightwing organizations, clerked for conservative judges, and have written articles or advocated for legal positions that are vastly out of step with most Americans.

Allison Rushing was 36 when she was confirmed to a seat on the fourth circuit court of appeals, 11 years after graduating from law school, and Trump’s youngest nominee to a circuit court judgeship. She clerked for then-circuit judge Neil Gorsuch and for Justice Clarence Thomas. Her law practice during the remaining nine years was limited to representing big corporations at one of the nation’s largest law firms.

Andrew Brasher was 38 when he was confirmed to a seat on the 11th circuit court of appeals, after serving for only nine months on the district court for the middle district of Alabama. In the years just before his appointment he served as Alabama’s solicitor general, often advocating for rightwing causes.

Justin Walker, best known for his full-throated defense of Brett Kavanaugh (for whom he clerked), was appointed as a district judge in the western district of Kentucky, at 37, just 10 years after graduating law school. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell, who held up debate on a Covid-19 relief bill to attend Walker’s induction ceremony. Less than six months after Walker took the bench, Trump announced that he intended to nominate him for an upcoming vacancy on the DC court of appeals.

Patrick Wyrick was 38 when he was confirmed as a judge for the western district of Oklahoma. Four years after graduating law school he became the solicitor general of Oklahoma. He is a protege of Scott Pruitt, the disgraced former head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of these judges could easily end up on the supreme court; two are known to be on the shortlist. All will probably still be on the bench 40 years from now. That alone should make voters think hard about the upcoming presidential election. As the saying goes: elections have consequences.

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN 

Update My Monthly Donation

WIN WITHOUT WAR: The Pentagon does not need any more money.

The Pentagon is seeking BILLIONS and BILLIONS from Congress in the next COVID relief stimulus package. Why? To protect the mega-profits of arms dealers and defense contractors. 

Yes. That’s right. As we lose tens of thousands of loved ones here, and hundreds of thousands around the world, to COVID-19 — the Pentagon wants even MORE money on top of the $750 billion+ it already wastes every year on unnecessary, dangerous weapons, defense contractor giveaways, and Trump’s racist border wall.

We say ENOUGH. That’s why Win Without War, along with 61 of our partners are going toe to toe with the arms industry, and demanding Congress not give the Pentagon a PENNY MORE in the next coronavirus relief package. 

Will you ask your members of Congress to demand we bail out the people, not the Pentagon and arms dealers in the next coronavirus relief package?

We don’t need more nukes, militarized borders, armies, or drones — because war doesn’t keep anyone safe. We need more masks, nurses, ventilators, stimulus checks for unemployed, poor, and undocumented people, Black communities and communities of color, and healthcare and housing for all — because that is what keeps us all safe.

Congress has to bail out the people, not the Pentagon and its arm dealer friends. 

This was true before coronavirus. But it’s flat-out undeniably and STARKLY blatant today, as our family and neighbors die, struggle to put food on the table, or keep a roof overhead.

The thing is, the Pentagon and Trump’s White House don’t get to decide whether the Pentagon gets billions more. Congress does. And that's why we are throwing down to create a wave of public pressure, a storm in the media, and move as many members of Congress to get congressional leadership to reprioritize funding in the next stimulus package, and beyond.

And to create this gigantum wave, we need your help. 

Will you demand your members of Congress do everything they can to block the Pentagon and arms dealers bail out today?


In the horrors of today’s pandemic, the choice has never been more simple. Do we continue with business as usual of funneling trillions into the Pentagon and stuffing the pockets of arms dealers and weapons manufacturers, while gutting funding for public health and other human needs — or do we bail out the people?

Thank you for working for peace,
Tara, Mariam, Erica, and the Win Without War team

 

 

 

© Win Without War Education Fund 2020
1 Thomas Circle NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005
(202) 656-4999 | info@winwithoutwar.org 

RSN: FOCUS: Bernie Sanders | Here's How to Cover Uninsured Americans During the Pandemic

28 April 20

---

If You Can Donate, We Really Need You Now

We know that not everyone can donate, but if you can we need you now. Many of you are quite well aware of what we do and how hard it is to do it the way we do it. Get behind us, the time is now.

Thanks to all,

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

---

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611

28 April 20

It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News

URGENT AND IMMEDIATE APPEAL FOR DONATIONS - It is - very - important to get moving on donations, right here right now. Yes we do need the money. Yes some people have helped. But we have to have a good month, whatever it takes. As of right now it’s not happening. With urgency. / Marc Ash, Founder Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

---

FOCUS: Bernie Sanders | Here's How to Cover Uninsured Americans During the Pandemic

Bernie Sanders, POLITICO
Sanders writes: "This pandemic makes even more clear that we are all only as safe as the least-insured in our country."

This is the moment for Medicare for All—without forcing anyone off their private insurance.

s the coronavirus continues to spread, and the United States climbs closer to 1 million cases and nearly 60,000 deaths, we face an unprecedented economic and health care crisis that demands an unprecedented response. While we work toward an economic solution that keeps people on the payroll, Washington is also in the midst of a crucial argument over how to help cover the costs of testing, treatment and all other essential care for the millions of people who are now uninsured or soon will be as the country faces record levels of job loss. 

Last week, the White House said it would give an unspecified amount of federal aid directly to hospitals to cover the costs of treating uninsured Covid-19 patients, but details have not been released, and the proposal leaves out all non-Covid-19—but still crucial—medical care. The week before, a handful of Democrats proposed spending hundreds of billions of dollars on expanding subsidies for COBRA—the program that allows those who have lost their jobs to continue, on a temporary basis, paying out-of-pocket for the health insurance coverage they received from their previous employer.

But there’s another, better way to guarantee that everyone in America gets all the health care they need, without cost, for the duration of the pandemic: Empower Medicare to pay all of the health care costs for the uninsured, as well as all out-of-pocket expenses for those with existing public or private insurance, for as long as this pandemic continues. Our Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act is more comprehensive than Trump’s vague proposal and less expensive than the Democrats’ COBRA expansion.

Let’s be clear: Even before this crisis began, 87 million Americans were uninsured or underinsured—struggling to get to a doctor when they needed to. Now the situation is much worse.

There is no doubt that the health care crisis we are facing right now is an emergency. Already, an estimated 9.2 million workers have lost their employer-sponsored insurance, and as many as 35 million people might lose coverage by the end of the crisis. Meanwhile, the cost of hospital treatment for the coronavirus amounts to tens of thousands of dollars, and patients struggling with the disease are desperately worried that they cannot afford treatment or might go bankrupt if they get it. To make matters worse, some of the communities hit hardest by the coronavirus, such as the undocumented, largely do not have any health insurance coverage at all.

Yet, unbelievably, in the midst of this horrific pandemic, Republicans in Congress have only continued their cruel and single-minded focus on repealing the Affordable Care Act. Further, Republican governors, like Greg Abbott in Texas, continue to fight against Medicaid expansion, leaving many of the most vulnerable people in their states desperate and sick.

While almost all Democrats understand the severity of the crisis and the need to act, too many of them are proposing a totally inadequate response that would simply lock in place the dysfunction and waste of our current health care system.

Subsidizing COBRA, as they have suggested, would be both expensive and ineffective: Not only would health insurance corporations make massive profits off the plan—profits that come at the cost of the American taxpayer—but it would still leave tens of millions uninsured or underinsured. And during this pandemic, a lack of insurance means more Covid-19 transmissions and more deaths.

Expanding COBRA during the pandemic would do nothing to cover those who already lacked insurance. It also won’t help the many Americans who continue to receive employer-provided health care but are still prevented from going to the doctor by massive deductibles and co-pays. In fact, the average family with employer-provided insurance faces $4,700 in out-of-pocket costs every year. The deductible alone for the average low-income worker is $2,600 a year. Maintaining the status quo does nothing to address these extraordinary costs, made worse during the pandemic economy.

Further, COBRA subsidies will only cement the inequities of our current health insurance system. Right now, low-wage workers are, on average, enrolled in plans with low premiums but higher deductibles. On the other hand, higher-wage employees, often professionals, have platinum plans with much higher premiums and far superior coverage. Expanding COBRA, which subsidizes only premiums, would treat high-income workers who lose their jobs far better than low-wage workers who do, even though the latter have suffered the brunt of the economic damage wrought by the pandemic.

The Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act would treat all people equally. For the duration of this crisis, under the act, Medicare will cover all medically necessary health care, including prescription drugs, for the uninsured, whether those who have recently lost their jobs or those who have been long without insurance. It is simply irresponsible and dangerous to the public to allow millions of people in this country to go without health coverage as a pandemic rips through our communities.

Medicare, under our plan, would also temporarily cover the copays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for all medically necessary health care for those who are already insured. Here is how this simple and efficient plan would work: When people go to the hospital or doctor, they provide their insurance information. If they have insurance, their provider will bill Medicare for the out-of-pocket costs; if the individual is uninsured, the provider will bill Medicare for the entire cost of care. The patient will not be forced to pay any bills for their treatment.

This proposal would prevent insurance companies from decreasing coverage and ban surprise billing so patients don’t get unexpected charges later. It would also prevent price gouging by pharmaceutical companies by making sure the government pays the same lower price for prescription drugs as the Veterans Health Administration.

Allowing Medicare to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses during the pandemic isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s actually less expensive for taxpayers because, unlike COBRA, the government would not be covering the cost of expensive monthly premiums to insurance corporations.

The numbers make this clear. If 35 million Americans lose their employer-provided coverage, as estimated by Health Management Associates, subsidizing premiums to health insurance corporations through COBRA would cost $157 billion over four months, or as much as $472 billion over a year. And even then, these figures don’t include the outrageously high deductibles that many people would still have to pay. Meanwhile, the conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that allowing Medicare to cover out-of-pocket expenses for everyone would cost around $150 billion over four months, or only $400 billion over a year. In other words, the Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act provides comprehensive coverage to far more Americans while saving taxpayers money.

The American people deserve a health care response to the pandemic that’s simple, easy to understand and doesn’t require them to fill out complicated forms or deal with an already stressed bureaucracy in order to receive care. Under this proposal, everyone in the United States, regardless of insurance coverage or immigration status, would be able to walk into a doctor’s office to receive the care they need without worrying about the cost.

At a time when many American families are waiting hours in food lines and are often unable to afford groceries, whatever amount of money is left in their pocket must be saved for the basic needs of their families, not exorbitant health care bills. When so many of our people are struggling economically and are terrified by the possibility of becoming sick with the coronavirus, the government must take the burden of health care costs off the backs of working people. The Health Care Emergency Guarantee Act would do just that.

READ MORE

---

Contribute to RSN 

Update My Monthly Donation