John Roberts can’t save them now.
White House As US Hits 200K COVID Deaths: Hey, At Least It’s Not 2 Million
As the United Stated tops 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested Tuesday that the fact that 2 million people haven’t died due to coronavirus is worth celebrating.
“We were looking at the prospect of 2 million people potentially perishing from the coronavirus in this country,” McEnany told reporters when asked about the President’s response to the grim milestone during a press briefing. “We grieve when even one life is lost — the fact that we have come nowhere near that number is a testament to this president taking immediate action.”
When pressed by multiple reporters on the President’s silence amid reports of the nation’s COVID-19 death toll milestone, she referred them to Trump’s past remarks.
“He has said before it keeps him up at night,” McEnany said.
The United States has continued to exceed all other nations with its staggering death toll, even as the President suggested earlier this month that the United States had “rounded the final turn” in its fight against the coronavirus. Those comments contradicted the wisdom of public health experts, like infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci who warned that Americans need to “hunker down” in the colder months. He called a review of nationwide statistics earlier this month revealing that new cases of infection were plateauing at 40,000 daily, and reports of roughly 1,000 deaths per day, “disturbing.”
McEnany also recycled a tired defense for the Trump administration’s response to COVID-19, saying the President took “immediate action” by banning travel from China — a victory that is now six months old but seems to remain the crowning victory of the administration. The ban has been repeatedly used by the press secretary as a catch-all defense for the President’s many other failures in leadership amid the pandemic.
The press secretary also appeared to discount documented interviews where the President can be heard telling investigative journalist Bob Woodward that even though he knew the coronavirus was “deadly stuff” he was purposely “playing it down” — and effectively misleading the American public.
“The President never downplayed critical health information,” McEnany said in what can only be called an about-face when asked why the President has repeatedly misled the public about the deadliness of coronavirus.
On Monday, the President continued that narrative at a rally in Swanton, Ohio, suggesting that the coronavirus affected “affects virtually nobody.” He was referring mostly to young people.
Hours later, Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta during an interview early Tuesday that it was “unacceptable” not to acknowledge that the United States is entering a new “risk period” with the virus.
“It’s unacceptable to not realize that we are entering into a risk period,” Fauci said, adding that the threat of coronavirus needs to be taken more seriously.
So What Is The ‘McConnell Rule,’ Really?
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It first appeared at Balkinization.
There are only so many ways to defend behaviors alleged to violate a political or constitutional norm.
You can, for instance, argue that the other side’s wrongdoing justifies or excuses an otherwise impermissible response. You can argue that extraordinary circumstances or considerations warrant a temporary departure from the norm. Or you can argue that your behavior does not in fact violate the norm, once the behavior or the norm is properly (re)described.
Over the past few days, Republican politicians and pundits have cycled through each of these argument types in defending themselves against accusations of violating the “McConnell rule.”
Invoking a self-help rationale, Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted that he will move forward on President Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ginsburg because “Harry Reid changed the rules [in 2013] to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees” and “Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open.” Yet the basic problem with this argument is that, across all areas of life and law, otherwise impermissible countermeasures must be proportionate to the other side’s alleged wrongdoing, and the wrongs cited by Graham have already been redressed (and then some). Mitch McConnell changed the rules in 2017 to allow a simple majority vote for Supreme Court nominees; Senate Republicans have exploited the lack of a filibuster for lower court nominees in record-breaking fashion; and Kavanaugh is, of course, now on the Court. Even on Graham’s own account, there is no Democratic tit that could legitimate this Republican tat.
Invoking a force majeure–style rationale, Senator Ted Cruz suggested that President Trump’s nominee must be confirmed before November because “we cannot have Election Day come and go with a four-four Court,” which would risk a deadlock on election disputes and thus “a constitutional crisis.” Yet the basic problem with this argument is that it would have applied to the Merrick Garland nomination as well. The notion that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision handing the election to Trump is a solution to constitutional crisis is also highly contestable, to put it mildly. One could just as easily characterize such a decision as a precipitator of constitutional crisis — or indeed as a crisis itself.
Finally, and most common of all, Republican politicians and pundits have invoked an innocence rationale and explained that the McConnell rule was never meant to apply to a situation like this. As an evidently exasperated former aide to Senator Tom Cotton put it: “The McConnell rule applies when the Senate and White House are controlled by *different* parties, which is obviously not the case in 2020. Journos understand this, but many will deliberately mislead their readers and viewers who do not.” I confess that I had failed to grasp this nuance before, no doubt because the mainstream media bamboozled me. Yet even if it were true that the McConnell rule was formulated in these terms from the beginning — which is far from clear — the basic problem would remain that such a rule makes little sense. The sole coherent basis for the McConnell rule is that by refraining from installing a new justice close to a presidential election, the Senate enhances the democratic character of the Supreme Court selection process. Nothing in this logic ought to turn on which party controls the Senate (while ignoring which party controls the House). If the McConnell rule is to be even plausibly defensible on its supporters’ chosen grounds of democratic theory, it cannot be understood as a principle applicable only to a specific sort of divided government.
"
McConnell has always honored a straightforward principle when it comes to these matters, and the principle is to block as many Democratic nominees and confirm as many Republican nominees as is politically feasible. Every supposed micro-rule guiding his behavior is really just an application of this overarching macro-rule.
"
In light of these various problems, it seems to me that the most credible Republican defense against accusations of violating the McConnell rule would take a very different and more dramatic form: denial of the premise that Senator McConnell ever adhered to any such rule. For a governmental practice to amount to a norm, the practice must at a minimum be regularly followed out of some sense of normative obligation. Neither criterion appears to be satisfied here. No one has followed the McConnell rule since it was ostensibly created/crystallized in 2016, and no one seems to have internalized it as a precept of political or constitutional morality. You can’t violate a norm that doesn’t exist.
Is there no such thing as the “McConnell rule,” then? Regardless, there are the statements that McConnell and his allies have made about Supreme Court confirmations, which can fairly be enlisted to support a charge of hypocrisy or unfair dealing. But if one concentrates on deeds rather than words, an alternative picture comes into focus: namely, that McConnell has always honored a straightforward principle when it comes to these matters, and the principle is to block as many Democratic nominees and confirm as many Republican nominees as is politically feasible. Every supposed micro-rule guiding his behavior is really just an application of this overarching macro-rule. As President Trump remarked to Bob Woodward, “You know what Mitch’s biggest thing is in the whole world? His judges.”
McConnell may be unusually effective and single-minded in pursuit of “his judges” — the hardest hardball player in the business — but I assume that many Democratic senators subscribe to some version of the inverse principle. Given the amount of power wielded by the contemporary Court and the degree of constitutional polarization that prevails, every justiceship that goes to the other side is nothing short of a disaster. Procedural niceties are a predictable casualty.
I share Justice Ginsburg’s fervent wish that she not be replaced until there is a new president. But if this wish ends up being realized, it will not be because of but in spite of the McConnell rule — the real McConnell rule. Going forward, the only hope of restoring regularity and integrity to Supreme Court confirmations lies in restructuring the justices’ selection process (as through fixed terms or partisan-balance requirements), restructuring judicial review (as through “democratizing” reforms), or both.
David Pozen is Vice Dean for Intellectual Life and the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.
Trump Admin Faces Questions Over Mid-October Vaccine Distribution Plan
The Trump administration is asking states to have vaccine distribution plans in place by mid-October, stoking fears that the government will rush the release of an unproven COVID-19 vaccine before the election at a risk to public health.
Continue reading “Trump Admin Faces Questions Over Mid-October Vaccine Distribution Plan”
Fox News’ Chris Wallace Chooses Topics For First Presidential Debate
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who is set to moderate the first presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden next week, announced on Tuesday six topics for the debate. Continue reading “Fox News’ Chris Wallace Chooses Topics For First Presidential Debate”
Ex-Pence Aide Rips Trump Over ‘Frightening’ COVID-19 Response
Olivia Troye, a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who announced last week that she plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, recounted what she viewed as President Trump’s “frightening” COVID-19 response during an interview set to air on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday. Continue reading “Ex-Pence Aide Rips Trump Over ‘Frightening’ COVID-19 Response”
Fauci Warns US Is Entering ‘Risk Period’ Of Pandemic As Fall Begins
White House COVID-19 expert Dr. Anthony Fauci warned on Tuesday, the first day of fall, that the country is arriving at a particularly dangerous stage of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continue reading “Fauci Warns US Is Entering ‘Risk Period’ Of Pandemic As Fall Begins”
With Bogus Claim Of ‘Millions’ Of Fraudulent Votes, Don Jr. Recruits ‘Army For Trump’
Appearing haggard and hoarse, Donald Trump Jr. stared down the camera and began recruiting soldiers. Continue reading “With Bogus Claim Of ‘Millions’ Of Fraudulent Votes, Don Jr. Recruits ‘Army For Trump’”
Where Things Stand: Senate GOP Falls In Line Behind McConnell
There was never any real doubt that Republicans would move swiftly to fill the seat of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And now a number of key Republican senators have come out to endorse Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) effort to do so. Whether a vote will happen before or after Election Day remains something of an open question, but once McConnell has the votes he will say “go.”
United States’ COVID-19 Death Toll Tops 200,000
The U.S. death toll from the coronavirus topped 200,000 Tuesday, a figure unimaginable eight months ago when the scourge first reached the world’s richest nation with its sparkling laboratories, top-flight scientists and stockpiles of medicines and emergency supplies.
“It is completely unfathomable that we’ve reached this point,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins University public health researcher.
The bleak milestone, by far the highest confirmed death toll from the virus in the world, was reported by Johns Hopkins, based on figures supplied by state health authorities. But the real toll is thought to be much higher, in part because many COVID-19 deaths were probably ascribed to other causes, especially early on, before widespread testing.
The number of dead in the U.S. is equivalent to a 9/11 attack every day for 67 days. It is roughly equal to the population of Salt Lake City or Huntsville, Alabama.
And it is still climbing. Deaths are running at close to 770 a day on average, and a widely cited model from the University of Washington predicts the overall U.S. toll will double to 400,000 by the end of the year as schools and colleges reopen and cold weather sets in. A vaccine is unlikely to become widely unavailable until 2021.
“The idea of 200,000 deaths is really very sobering, in some respects stunning,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top infectious-disease expert, said on CNN.
The figure reflects America’s unenviable spot, which it has held for five months, as the world’s leader by far in sheer numbers of confirmed infections and deaths. The U.S. has less than 5% of the globe’s population but more than 20% of the reported deaths.
Only five countries — Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Spain and Brazil — rank higher in COVID-19 deaths per capita. Brazil is No. 2 on the list of the countries with the most deaths, with about 137,000, followed by India with approximately 89,000 and Mexico with around 74,000.
“All the world’s leaders took the same test, and some have succeeded and some have failed,” said Dr. Cedric Dark, an emergency physician at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston who has seen death firsthand. “In the case of our country, we failed miserably.”
Blacks, Hispanics and American Indians have accounted for a disproportionate share of the deaths, underscoring the economic and health care disparities in the U.S.
Worldwide, the virus has infected more than 31 million people and is closing in fast on 1 million deaths, with over 965,000 lives lost, by Johns Hopkins’ count, though the real numbers are believed to be higher because of gaps in testing and reporting.
For the U.S., it wasn’t supposed to go this way.
When the year began, the U.S. had recently garnered recognition for its readiness for a pandemic. Health officials seemed confident as they converged on Seattle in January to deal with the country’s first known case of coronavirus, in a 35-year-old Washington state resident who had returned from visiting his family in Wuhan, China.
On Feb. 26, President Donald Trump held up pages from the Global Health Security Index, a measure of readiness for health crises, and declared: “The United States is rated No. 1 most prepared.”
It was true. The U.S. outranked the 194 other countries in the index. Besides its labs, experts and strategic stockpiles, the U.S. could boast of its disease trackers and plans for rapidly communicating lifesaving information during a crisis. The leadership of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was respected for sending help to fight infectious diseases around the globe.
But the stealthy coronavirus slipped into the U.S. and spread undetected. Monitoring at airports was loose. Travel bans came too late. Only later did health officials realize the virus could spread before symptoms show up, rendering screening imperfect.
The virus swept into nursing homes, which suffered from poor infection control, where it began claiming lives, now numbering more than 78,000.
It also exploited inequalities in the United States: Nearly 30 million people in the country are uninsured, and there are stark health differences among racial and ethnic groups.
At the same time, gaps in federal leadership led to shortages of testing supplies. Internal warnings to ramp up production of masks were ignored, leaving states to compete for protective gear. Governors led their states in different directions, adding to public confusion.
Trump downplayed the threat early on, advanced unfounded notions about the behavior of the virus, promoted unproven or dangerous treatments, complained that too much testing was making the U.S. look bad, and disdained masks, turning face coverings into a political issue.
On April 10, the president predicted the U.S. wouldn’t see 100,000 deaths. That milestone was reached May 27.
Nowhere was the lack of leadership seen as more crucial than in testing, a key to breaking the chain of contagion.
“We have from the very beginning lacked a national testing strategy,” Nuzzo said. “For reasons I can’t truly fathom we’ve refused to develop one.” Such coordination “should be led out of the White House,” not by each state independently, she said. “We aren’t going to restore our economy until every state has this virus under control.”
The real number of dead from the crisis could be significantly higher: As many as 215,000 more people than usual died in the U.S. from all causes during the first seven months of 2020, according to CDC figures. The death toll from COVID-19 during the same period was put at about 150,000 by Johns Hopkins.
Researchers suspect some coronavirus deaths were overlooked, while other deaths may have been caused indirectly by the crisis, by creating such turmoil that people with chronic conditions such as diabetes or heart disease were unable or unwilling to get treatment.
Dark, the emergency physician at Baylor, said that before the crisis, “people used to look to the United States with a degree of reverence. For democracy. For our moral leadership in the world. Supporting science and using technology to travel to the moon.”
“Instead,” he said, “what’s really been exposed is how anti-science we’ve become.”
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.