Tag: Bush v. Gore

CNN anchor Poppy Harlow told viewers on Tuesday that the network’s decision to sue the Trump administration over its revocation of White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials is "not about politics" but instead "about constitutional rights.” In the lawsuit filed Tuesday morning, CNN accuses President Trump and other White House officials of violating Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, the latest escalation of an ongoing feud between Trump and CNN. “I think, Ted, we should remind our viewers this is not about politics," Harlow said during an interview with Ted Boutrous, who is representing CNN in the suit. And Ted Olson and I, we come from different political viewpoints, actually, even though we have been partners for 30 years," replied Boutrous. "That’s the whole point." So this ruling will protect everyone in the press and every citizen, no matter what their political affiliation, so they get as much information as they can get so they can govern themselves," he continued. It is a First Amendment issue that is really important to our society.” Boutrous's argument on CNN echoes that of the language in the lawsuit, which says the White House decision to revoke Acosta's pass has a "dangerous chilling effect for any journalist." "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials." The legal action comes six days after a combative exchange between Acosta and Trump in the White House East Room that dominated headlines for days. The exchange came to a head Acosta fired off a series of questions while openly debating the president of his portrayal of a migrant caravan as an “invasion.” When Trump tried to move on to another reporter after Acosta attempted to ask a fourth question, Acosta initially refused to surrender the microphone to a White House intern. The following day, Sanders announced that Acosta's "hard pass" was being revoked as a result.

This is the editor's letter in the current issue of The Week magazine. Brett Kavanaugh's indignant warning to Democrats last week may be the defining ethos of this political era. As I write this, the fate of Kavanaugh's nomination remains undecided, but there is no doubt that the outcome will trigger howls of outrage among tens of millions of people — and vows of vengeance. This is our politics now: No uplifting rhetoric about "hope" or "a shining city on the hill." No poetry. No norms. No decency. It is grievance, revenge, and identity, all the way down. Furious Democrats cite the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton (in which Kavanaugh played a prominent and censorious role), the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, and last year's refusal by Senate Republicans to even consider President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. The Kavanaugh nomination now goes on the bonfire.

Historically, the justices have been loath to get their hands dirty by intervening in political disputes. Campaign finance reform was a free speech issue that the justices could sink their teeth into. But the issue of redistricting is pure politics and has been handled as such by both political parties in the states since time immemorial. In this case, or I should say cases, since two were handled at once, the issue was down and dirty politics. Democrats claimed the Republican-controlled legislature packed Democrats into a few districts, leaving a majority of Republicans with outsize influence in most of the state. Even the former Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, said the district was gerrymandered, but it was ok because it was in response to Republican gerrymandering and, anyway, he is now all for the Supreme Court to rule against all gerrymandering. In Maryland’s case, the court just reaffirmed a lower court ruling denying a preliminary injunction throwing out the district in question. The real winner in all this is the advocates who won in Pennsylvania, where the Democrats cleverly went to state court, having elected a 5-2 Democrat majority (judges are elected in Pennsylvania) and got them to write their own plan after the governor, a Democrat, refused to accept a Republican legislative plan, prompted by the court’s throwing out the old district lines. Now that the Supreme Court has rid itself of having to make a decision on the merits, that is, whether there is a Constitutional question involved in what is known as gerrymandering. There’s another factor at play in the future, as well.